Re: for the close of all fission nuclear reactor in the world

Terence wrote:
A few points (as a high-energy physicist)
1) We ourselves are radioactive naturally, due to Potassium 40 in our
cells, which decays very slowly.Perhaps this is part of our global
evolutionary process, making egg and sperm cell changes? Think of the
ancient apes constantly crossing the area around the natural nuclear
reactors (6 found) in central Africa! Out of Africa indded!

Good point. Perhaps the answer to the question "why are we here?" is "to irradiate the planet, in order to hasten the mutation which creates our successors". I kinda hope so, 'cause we seem hell-bent on doing it.

2) We believe the major source of heat in the earth that powers
volcanos and crustal movements is this same K-40 because of the vaste
quantity of potassium in the rocks, other sources simple help.

So... we've got a fusion reactor over our heads (only while we've got our heads pointed the right way, unfortunately) and a potassium reactor under our feet (always "shining"). And we need to build more???

3) Commercial nuclear reactors are "pretty-good" from a safety point
of view;(but less so experimental devices)..

In the real world, we can't run a fucking sugar refinery safely! This is going to be different?

4) We always learn from mistakes (hopefully small) and from better
knowledge.

The problem with nuclear oopsies is that, even if small, they last a long time. How's Chernobyl doing?

5) If one day we get really safe space transport vehicles, we could
theoretically shoot radioactive waste into the sun; best to do it from
the moon (even if that makesa two step process) to get the correct
trajectory and velocity and use free power and cheap casing
materials.. Right now it's NOT an option.

Given "safe transport", what's the energy cost to haul this *** up out of Earth's gravity well? Better to put it under Ronald Reagan's desk, like he offered.

Or we could haul it off to Nevada ("safe transport", of course) and bury it in a mountain. What the hell, they've been exposed anyway, out there. Of course, we'll need to post armed guards around it, to keep the kiddies and the terrorists out. We've just ASSumed that society will include armed guards for... thousands of years. Do we wanna do that?

6) I'm fully in favour of using solar and wind energy (this is just a
re-distribution of energy). Using tidal energy will lose us our moon
in the long term, even if it takes a long time.

Good point! Long term use of geothermal energy might have adverse effects, too. Even solar isn't really free - every meter of PV panel is a meter of "earth" that *isn't* getting sunlight (and doing photosynthesis and trivial stuff like that).

And we are getting
better at solar-cell efficiencies.

Yes. There's a *lot* of solar energy that falls on Earth - and a whole lot more that misses, and is "wasted". Poor efficiency won't kill us. What we need is a panel that keeps on chuggin' when the sun "goes down" (we turn our backs on it). Neutrino-voltaics? If we could only be satisfied with running our electric lights in the daytime, but nooo...

As Rs points out - better batteries! Or perhaps a globe-spanning "grid" (doesn't sound too practical). The beauty of solar is that it's already distributed - no need for ocean-going tankers, or trucks, or pipelines, or transmission pylons. If the terrorists want to knock my electricity out, they've got to come to my house! But the battery kills it. We better figure *something* out - "homo hydrocarbon" isn't going to be around much longer!

Best,
Frank
.

Quantcast