South Carolina vs. US Plutonium

[Nefrodite]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Valinos Plutonium isn't fuel for nuclear reactors...plutonium is the byproduct of uranium which is used in nuclear reactors.

Actually it can be used in nuke power plants, it just happens to weapons grade as well. We could take the nuclear waste from nuke plants and process it in a breeder reacter and create usable plutonium from it and reuse it. But since plutonium can be used for weapons, it is frowned upon more than the nuke waste. what a crazy world it is....

I believe this is why the French got grief over selling fast-breeder technology some years ago, which some (North Korea for example) used to make nukes. Someone please correct me if I am remembering this incorrectly.

the horrible french sold one to iraq

the israelis bombed it


will saddam have the bomb? yea in a few years probably.


Saddam's Bombmaker : The Daring Escape of the Man Who Built Iraq's Secret Weapon --

 

[glen]

Ok, raise your hand if you are using power.
Ok, take your pick:
coal
oil
hydo-electric
nuclear

Question:
Which one releases the most radio activity into the environment?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I believe it is coal, but could be wrong. I did not google for the answer

 

[glen]

You are correct.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: glen
Ok, raise your hand if you are using power.
Ok, take your pick:
coal
oil
hydo-electric
nuclear

Question:
Which one releases the most radio activity into the environment?

My guess would be coal. Some coal does have trace radioactive elements in it and those probably are quite difficult to scrub out.

 

[Mong]

It's to be converted into MOX fuel "in the future" to be used at two plants in the Charlotte NC area. One plant is about 40 miles away from my house and the other is about 11

It will be years before it can be converted for fuel use.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: glen
Nuclear energy is better for the environment than burning fossil fuels, or building dams.

Bullsh8!!! :disgust:

That might be true if it didn't glow for millenia after it was useful, but that happens to be the situation. With current technology, there is absolutely nothing that can be done to de-radiate nuclear waste. We can use, and discard, and use, and discard only so long. When you keep throwing stuff away, away continues to get bigger and bigger, until away is HERE, and here keeps getting smaller and smaller.

We really do have to develop renewable power sources and get away from nukes as fast as possible, if not sooner.

This is what I find so ridiculous about the anti-nuke people. No one denies that a better power source should be found. What is pathetic is people like this who don't want to use the cleanest source we have now until that future source is found. They rather we continue spewing trillions of tons of carcinogenic pollution in the air with our antiquated coal and oil burning plants -- causing more cancers than smoking-- than use the cheapest, cleanest source we have as a stop gap measure until new technology is developed. Compared to the numbers of people killed by coal and oil burning plant pollution, the relatively infinitesimal number of deaths due to radiation looks like a tea party.

Here's a hint to the anti-nuke fanatics: New power sources are still decades away. Why advocate the poisoning of millions with coal and oil plants rather than allow much cleaner nuclear energy until new sources are feasible?

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne


Here's a hint to the anti-nuke fanatics: New power sources are still decades away. Why advocate the poisoning of millions with coal and oil plants rather than allow much cleaner nuclear energy until new sources are feasible?

Environmental issues are funny. People set themselves on one thing and won't let it go. Now, I'm certainly not a professional, but it seems that nuclear energy is the better choice because it doesn't have the terrible pollution of fossil fuels.

The waste is the problem. Is the waste stored in lead containers? Isn't there an area with no one around for hundreds of miles (like in Nevada or somewhere) that we can store this?

At any rate, I don't think it should be in South Carolina. Like I said, I'm no expert.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: AmusedOne


Here's a hint to the anti-nuke fanatics: New power sources are still decades away. Why advocate the poisoning of millions with coal and oil plants rather than allow much cleaner nuclear energy until new sources are feasible?

Environmental issues are funny. People set themselves on one thing and won't let it go. Now, I'm certainly not a professional, but it seems that nuclear energy is the better choice because it doesn't have the terrible pollution of fossil fuels.

The waste is the problem. Is the waste stored in lead containers? Isn't there an area with no one around for hundreds of miles (like in Nevada or somewhere) that we can store this?

At any rate, I don't think it should be in South Carolina. Like I said, I'm no expert.

It's in SC to be processed into fuel. The Savannah River Plant is one of the last remaining facilities able to do this.

Yes, Yucca Mountain, NV is already set up to take nuclear waste... and all protests I've seen against this facility are pretty lame.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Valinos

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Plutonium isn't fuel for nuclear reactors...plutonium is the byproduct of uranium which is used in nuclear reactors.

I wish people would read the article before commenting...

The U.S. Energy Department plans to move about 6½ tons of plutonium from the Rocky Flats weapons installation in Colorado, which is being cleaned up and closed, to the Savannah River Site, where the material would be converted into nuclear reactor fuel over the next two decades.

Anywho, SC has a long history of shooting themselves in the foot financially. I see they're still at it.

I did read the article, yesterday. It hasn't been fresh in the mind, so I made a mistake. I didn't know plutonium could be used to fuel nuclear reactors, but apparently it can...after being "converted into nuclear reactor fuel."

Please, fvck off.

No, please have the material fresh in your mind before making false statements from ignorance as fact.

 

[glen]

At any rate, I don't think it should be in South Carolina. Like I said, I'm no expert

But, we already store TONS of it.
SRS mixes it into glass, so it does not leech out, then the barrelsl are stored in HUGE double walled containers with video cameras in between the two walls.
It will cost SC millions NOT to store it.

I'll take radio active waste, stored in these containers, ANY day of the week over fossile fuel pollutants in the air I breath.
Remeber, the LONGER it is radio active, the SLOWER it is decaying, so the "safer" it is.
Fast decayign stuff is much more dangerous.

 

[glen]

Here's a hint to the anti-nuke fanatics: New power sources are still decades away. Why advocate the poisoning of millions with coal and oil plants rather than allow much cleaner nuclear energy until new sources are feasible?

I think anti-nuke fanatics are nuts.
Do they want to help the environment or not?
They sure don't act like it.

 

[HermitGuy]

Most don't care until it's in their backyard.

As I said as long as it can be done safely, no it does not bother me. If I remember correctly there two or three nuclear power plants in Florida that I assume store waist at their sites, including one about eighty or ninety miles from where I live and when it comes to nuclear I consider that my back yard.


And I love how everything here turns into some talk about politics. It MUST be the democratic governors fault for destroying this balance of power between federal and state governments, isn't it?

I cannot speak to the particular beliefs of this governor but I would lay odds that he will not criticize the past polices of his party in this regard he would just say republicans are misusing them, and that's a matter of opinion which is of course where politics rears it's ugly head, which brings us back to why the politics of it are relevant to this issue because as I said in my previous post the democrats have spent all those years grabbing power for the federal government at the expense of the states, without it seems ever really looking at the future consequences of those power grabs. Now he and they are caught in their own web of federal laws and regulations.

In a democracy sooner or later your political opponents take power and inevitably will use those powers to further their own goals, it's why there used to be an unwritten maxim in this country about not passing laws that you would not want your political opponents to have access to, generally followed by both parties. The democrats threw that out to achieve the things they wanted, not all of them bad by the way, but sometimes even if your motive is good the end does not justify the means.

By the way glad to hear from another Floridian.

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: Valinos
Plutonium isn't fuel for nuclear reactors...plutonium is the byproduct of uranium which is used in nuclear reactors.

on the contrary, this type of fuel can be used in light water reactors (after treatment at a processing plant)

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: Harvey
If plutonium has a big enough team, South Carolina will lose the game. In fact, we all will.

??

your ignorant to the issue and the facts

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Six and a half TONS?

Man thats da bomb!

theres about 100 metric tons of highly enriched uranium at any one time in a nuclear reactor.... but this most certainly isnt a bomb. amount alone doesnt determine a bomb. what is needed for a nuclear bomb is weapons grade material (more or less what that means is very high fissle isotope density)

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Valinos
Plutonium isn't fuel for nuclear reactors...plutonium is the byproduct of uranium which is used in nuclear reactors.

Actually it can be used in nuke power plants, it just happens to weapons grade as well. We could take the nuclear waste from nuke plants and process it in a breeder reacter and create usable plutonium from it and reuse it. But since plutonium can be used for weapons, it is frowned upon more than the nuke waste.

what a crazy world it is....

you dont make much sense. weapons grade as well?? Nope. uranium can be used for weapons too!

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
All politics are local. He represents his state, and feels this is bad. I tend to agree, so I applaud him for all the good it will do.

bad why??

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: glen
Nuclear energy is better for the environment than burning fossil fuels, or building dams.

Bullsh8!!! :disgust:

That might be true if it didn't glow for millenia after it was useful, but that happens to be the situation. With current technology, there is absolutely nothing that can be done to de-radiate nuclear waste. We can use, and discard, and use, and discard only so long. When you keep throwing stuff away, away continues to get bigger and bigger, until away is HERE, and here keeps getting smaller and smaller.

We really do have to develop renewable power sources and get away from nukes as fast as possible, if not sooner.

LMAO

its AMAZING how much of an idiot you are! nuclear waste is stored in huge pools at nuclear power plants. have ANY problems ever come of this? NO! NEVER!! the current long term solution is to store the fuel in giant concrete reinforced containers and burry it 1 mile under a mountain (Yucca Mountain). so what is the problem??? if the radioactive material never radiates the environment, but just sits there in a container then whats the problem? and even if these containers were sitting out in the open and dooms day commit did hit the container and rupture it the radiation would leak harmlessly into the air..... so whats the problem? and if you dont like the sight of these containers then we can lauch the spend fuel into the sun!

the current argument against Yucca Mountain is that people clain that their is a chance that the container will, more or less, spontaneously fail and water can theoretically carry radioactive material into ground water. to that i say... your dreaming!

 

[Lucky]

the current argument against Yucca Mountain is that people clain that their is a chance that the container will, more or less, spontaneously fail and water can theoretically carry radioactive material into ground water. to that i say... your dreaming!

For someone who acts like they know everyone, you dont know sh*t about the issues. The current argument against yucca mountain being used by the representatives of nevada is that the shipment of radioactive material by train will be a hazard in terms of both accidents and by potential terrorist attacks.

edit: and did you really need to make six seperate posts?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes indeed, why are we using oil and coal? Why are viable alternatives decades away? Because we are told they are, and it seems to me that's what Joe Public wants. Look at the Great Britian wave power generating plants. They turn a profit. There are HUGE amounts of energy stored in waves. Not tidal power. Waves. It would be easy to extract all or forseeable power needs with todays technology in less then 10 years. This power can be used to produce hydrogen to make it more portable. What would it require? Certainly less effort than to construct the Interstate Highway system. Oh for fhose that say, "Great, but we need to build nukes till then". WTF are you talking about? Have any idea how long it takes to bring a nuke plant on-line? Also the quotes of the cost of producing nuclear power should be much higher than advertised because it is not known how much it will cost to get rid of the waste for good. But it is BIG bux already. I am not so much anti nuke as others seem to be pro nuke. Somebody show me, (after you learn what you are talking about) why nukes are superior to waves. Also how do you guarantee that the ever increasing amounts of hard radiation producing waste can be contained. This stuff will be hot after the Pyramids, and anything resembling humanity are dust.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Yes indeed, why are we using oil and coal? Why are viable alternatives decades away? Because we are told they are, and it seems to me that's what Joe Public wants. Look at the Great Britian wave power generating plants. They turn a profit. There are HUGE amounts of energy stored in waves. Not tidal power. Waves. It would be easy to extract all or forseeable power needs with todays technology in less then 10 years. This power can be used to produce hydrogen to make it more portable. What would it require? Certainly less effort than to construct the Interstate Highway system. Oh for fhose that say, "Great, but we need to build nukes till then". WTF are you talking about? Have any idea how long it takes to bring a nuke plant on-line? Also the quotes of the cost of producing nuclear power should be much higher than advertised because it is not known how much it will cost to get rid of the waste for good. But it is BIG bux already. I am not so much anti nuke as others seem to be pro nuke. Somebody show me, (after you learn what you are talking about) why nukes are superior to waves. Also how do you guarantee that the ever increasing amounts of hard radiation producing waste can be contained. This stuff will be hot after the Pyramids, and anything resembling humanity are dust.

Ah yes, the suppression conspiracy theory. I've found nothing to support it. If a company saw an opportunity to make money from waves in the US they would jump on it. In fact, I've seen nothing to suggest any alternative source is profitable yet. When it is, you can bet someone will jump on it.

BUT, you'd have to fight your way through the EPA, not to mention the enviro nuts who would ban all people from all beaches, if they could.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So A1.
Can you yet answer the question? How are nukes inherently superior to wave generators?
I think you ought to know by now that I dont come here yelling that the X-Files has much to do with reality. This has been in the scientific journals. We don't have conspiracy, we have vested interests and inertia. Think Westinghouse, GE et al is going to throw all their research and technology away? In the real business world, it is usually preferable to kill the competition than to invest billions in new technology. Much cheaper.Think corporations work for the consumer? Hell no. Was it Cormelius Vanderbilt who said "Public be damned, I work for the stockholders?" Well it was someone like him. In any case this has been my experience with upper management in corporations I have known and dealt with. You do have a point with the EPA. There is always something they do not like, but do you think they love radioactive waste?

Speaking of which.

You have tons and tons of plutonium. How do you store it until it is safe?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
Here's a hint to the anti-nuke fanatics: New power sources are still decades away. Why advocate the poisoning of millions with coal and oil plants rather than allow much cleaner nuclear energy until new sources are feasible?

Here's a hint to the pro-nuke fanatics who put money ahead of understanding physics: ONE (count 'em on one finger) nuclear leak can spoil your whole planet. Getting Earth's population to another one is much further out than the results of working for renewable power sources. Or to quote the bumper stickers and T-shirts, Good planets are hard to find.

Serious recent nuclear accidents:

1997 -- Tokai, Japan. Level 4

1986 -- Chernobyl, Belarus, Ukraine. Level 7 (the worst nuclear power accident on record.)

1979 -- Three Mile Island, Pa. Level 5

Want more? Whether or not you like Green Peace, try clicking through the months in this calandar of nuclear accidents on their site .

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
Here's a hint to the anti-nuke fanatics: New power sources are still decades away. Why advocate the poisoning of millions with coal and oil plants rather than allow much cleaner nuclear energy until new sources are feasible?

Here's a hint to the pro-nuke fanatics who put money ahead of understanding physics: ONE (count 'em on one finger) nuclear leak can spoil your whole planet.

Ridiculous. We've had many leaks, is the planet ruined??? We've blown off bombs that caused more radiation than all our leaks combined. Is the planet ruined?

There is a hysteria surrounding nuclear energy and radiation, and unfortunately, it appears you've bought into it. This is the same kind of nonsense as those who claim one nuclear bomb will cause nuclear winter.

If you can't be reasonable, why bother?