Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/02/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Awwwww, poor, poor Exxon. They had to shut down that facility after investing $1.5 billion, and they only ended up with more revenue this year than the GDP of Saudi Arabia - and a profit of over $10 billion. ;-) On 2/1/06 3:00 PM, "Seth Rosner" <sethrosner@nycap.rr.com> wrote: > 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 >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information