Fill'er up today Options

[mitchntx]

Even if technology advances, the waste made right now will be dangerous for 25,000 years.

If in the future we dig it up and reprocess it to make it safe then the real cost of the energy produced now is much higher than the estimate being given.

I would think that you would have to expect to entomb the waste for the expected life of the planet, that would be the onlly responsible thing to do.

At the rate we are going technology may not stand still, it could go backwards, heard of the dark ages?

If our radical-islamic buddies have their way, we would all be facing east in our high tech mud huts.

I think nuclear has a future as part of energy production. But the thing is, large hairless monkeys, with an 60-80 year life span are not well suited to dealing with problems that last for 25,000 years. I have a ME degree not an NE degree but it is very hard for me to think in terms that exceed the know existance of my species.

Real puzzler is how the french do it, they build crappy cars, and good reactors? The USA should be able to perform better than the french. I have heard that the french have one reactor design, and the USA has 15-20 different designs, that might be part of the problem.

But you ask what does that have to do with a 1995 z28 instant roll center? Nothing, so I should get off of the soap box.

Z28

Don't lose sight of the fact of what "technology has done over the past 10 years ... 20 years ... 30 years ...
There is no reason to think that technology will not continue to move forward.

The "waste" as we define it in 2005 and the "danger" as we define it in 2005 could very well be mitigated in 10 years ... 20 years ... 30 years ...

I see it as the glass being 1/2 full ... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I can't even fathom your outlook about the dark ages and humans evolving back into monkeys, if that is your belief system. If it is and your vision is true, why would we care? Ouir species has ceased to exist ...

The trend right now is moving the opposite direction from that, though. I see no reason to believe anything but further advances.

Good discussion ...

The French adopted a "Henry Ford" mentality ... build them all the same and the costs remain low.

As it stands right now, there are not 2 reactors in the US that are identical. Each requires it's own unique set of operating procedures, training and maintenance. Capitalism at it's best, eh?

[axoid]

As for the radioactive waste from nuclear power plants... this might be a crazy thought... but what would be wrong with say launching the waste into the sun? I doubt we'll be going there anytime soon, and it is already a site of high levels of radiation and nuclear reactions... I can't imagine that would affect it too much...

The first problem is it costs $10,000 per pound to launch something into space. The second problem is rockets fail and explode and then where is all of that material going.

The greenies go ape shit when NASA launches just 1 pound for nuclear material to power deep space probes.

[Pilot]

Well that's the cost by nasa's terms... what about alternative launch platforms? Something designed to offload waste wouldn't require anything in terms of crew safety, pressurization, climate control, etc etc.

My thought was just that if the waste becomes a serious issue due to the half life of the fuel, wouldn't the cost become justified?

[axoid]

Well that's the cost by nasa's terms... what about alternative launch platforms? Something designed to offload waste wouldn't require anything in terms of crew safety, pressurization, climate control, etc etc.

The 10 grand per pound is for an satellite launch, not the Shuttle. The only other launchers are the French, Chinese and the Japanese, all who have event worse success rates that NASA.

People freak out over trains carrying the stuff because of a possible accident. If a rocket blows up, it would dump 20+ tons of the stuff spread over a 5 state area.

[timyerby]

The hydroelectric is looking more promising every day.

Several companies are working on tidal systems that could be deployed in the ocean and provide lots of clean, renewable power.

Lots of links on this if you google em.

It won't be a short term fix because we have to build lots of them, but they could be a solution.

Also a lot of progress on hydroelectric systems that don't require a dam - they are just installed inside the river. We only have a few rivers that are capable of running significantly sized ones, but the Mississipi and Ohio are up to the task.

As far as the nuclear waste is concerned - why do you think we're trying to pump the middle east dry ? (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[mitchntx]

Hydro plants work fantastic .... where there is fast flowing water.
And we all know the environmentalists support building dams ...

And you can't generate electricity using hydro in Washington and ship it to Arizona.

Research VARS ... it's what keeps 60 cycles at 60 cycles over long transmission lines.

[TOO Z MAXX]

Using the tides and the ocean waves will not work that well. They are better off putting the money into wind and solar power.
I used to work in the wind industry. The wind industry had a very rocky start but the new machines they have out now are awesome. The wind farm I worked at had 336 65kw machines. We were able to mod these things out to 110 kw machines. We put on better gear boxes, rewound the generators and repitched and polished the blades. Now they come from the factory in 1 MW machines and higher. The only problem is no wind, no juice.

[Crazy Canuck]

it's 116.9 / liter here.
figure 4 liters per gallon.
that's way over 4$ / gallon.

[v7guy]

The highest I've seen on my limited outting today has been 2.98


Why is it I just keep getting the creepy feeling that this is just the begining (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

[Ojustracing]

Well Overnight it went up .30.. Super is now $3.27 (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/nutkick.gif) (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/drink.gif) . I always see higher prices in California so I hate to think what its going to be out there for super $4.00+. Later John

[mitchntx]

It only jumped $.20 here, since yesterday morning ....

Premium (93) is $2.95

[AllZWay]

It jumped 25 cents yesterday. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

[Teutonic Speedra...]

$3.03 to $3.53 here in NJ for 93!

[z28barnett]

Even if technology advances, the waste made right now will be dangerous for 25,000 years. 

If in the future we dig it up and reprocess it to make it safe then the real cost of the energy produced now is much higher than the estimate being given.

I would think that you would have to expect to entomb the waste for the expected life of the planet, that would be the onlly responsible thing to do.

At the rate we are going technology may not stand still, it could go backwards, heard of the dark ages?

If our radical-islamic buddies have their way, we would all be facing east in our high tech mud huts.

I think nuclear has a future as part of energy production.  But the thing is, large hairless monkeys, with an 60-80 year life span are not well suited to dealing with problems that last for 25,000 years.  I have a ME degree not an NE degree but it is very hard for me to think in terms that exceed the know existance of my species. 

Real puzzler is how the french do it, they build crappy cars, and good reactors?  The USA should be able to perform better than the french.  I have heard that the french have one reactor design, and the USA has 15-20 different designs, that might be part of the problem.

But you ask what does that have to do with a 1995 z28 instant roll center?  Nothing, so I should get off of the soap box.

Z28

Don't lose sight of the fact of what "technology has done over the past 10 years ... 20 years ... 30 years ...
There is no reason to think that technology will not continue to move forward.

The "waste" as we define it in 2005 and the "danger" as we define it in 2005 could very well be mitigated in 10 years ... 20 years ... 30 years ...

I see it as the glass being 1/2 full ... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I can't even fathom your outlook about the dark ages and humans evolving back into monkeys, if that is your belief system. If it is and your vision is true, why would we care? Ouir species has ceased to exist ...

The trend right now is moving the opposite direction from that, though. I see no reason to believe anything but further advances.

Good discussion ...

The French adopted a "Henry Ford" mentality ... build them all the same and the costs remain low.

As it stands right now, there are not 2 reactors in the US that are identical. Each requires it's own unique set of operating procedures, training and maintenance. Capitalism at it's best, eh?

Mitch,

I was making a joke when I mentioned "Big Hairless Monkeys".

Not expecting de-evolution, I consider my self to be a big hairless monkey. Other people are BHM's to greater and lesser degree.

I don't really expect the darkages, but neither did the people of that time.

I don't think we will make that advances will help much with Nuclear Waste. Too fundamental of a problem, nature of matter its self.

The lack of standards is a real problem. What you describe is worse than I thought, not good.

I have allways wondered if the nuclear industry grew out of the need for spent fuel rods. Those spent rods can be used to produce nukes. Our huge nuke bomb supply may have need those rods. That would have allowed the cost of the warheads to be hidden partly in civil projects.

I know how freaked out everyone gets when there is even a hint of fuel rod reprocessing in any other country, like iran.

Z28

[mitchntx]

Even if technology advances, the waste made right now will be dangerous for 25,000 years. 

If in the future we dig it up and reprocess it to make it safe then the real cost of the energy produced now is much higher than the estimate being given.

I would think that you would have to expect to entomb the waste for the expected life of the planet, that would be the onlly responsible thing to do.

At the rate we are going technology may not stand still, it could go backwards, heard of the dark ages?

If our radical-islamic buddies have their way, we would all be facing east in our high tech mud huts.

I think nuclear has a future as part of energy production.  But the thing is, large hairless monkeys, with an 60-80 year life span are not well suited to dealing with problems that last for 25,000 years.   I have a ME degree not an NE degree but it is very hard for me to think in terms that exceed the know existance of my species. 

Real puzzler is how the french do it, they build crappy cars, and good reactors?   The USA should be able to perform better than the french.  I have heard that the french have one reactor design, and the USA has 15-20 different designs, that might be part of the problem.

But you ask what does that have to do with a 1995 z28 instant roll center?  Nothing, so I should get off of the soap box.

Z28

Don't lose sight of the fact of what "technology has done over the past 10 years ... 20 years ... 30 years ...
There is no reason to think that technology will not continue to move forward.

The "waste" as we define it in 2005 and the "danger" as we define it in 2005 could very well be mitigated in 10 years ... 20 years ... 30 years ...

I see it as the glass being 1/2 full ... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I can't even fathom your outlook about the dark ages and humans evolving back into monkeys, if that is your belief system. If it is and your vision is true, why would we care? Ouir species has ceased to exist ...

The trend right now is moving the opposite direction from that, though. I see no reason to believe anything but further advances.

Good discussion ...

The French adopted a "Henry Ford" mentality ... build them all the same and the costs remain low.

As it stands right now, there are not 2 reactors in the US that are identical. Each requires it's own unique set of operating procedures, training and maintenance. Capitalism at it's best, eh?

Mitch,

I was making a joke when I mentioned "Big Hairless Monkeys".

Not expecting de-evolution, I consider my self to be a big hairless monkey. Other people are BHM's to greater and lesser degree.

I don't really expect the darkages, but neither did the people of that time.

I don't think we will make that advances will help much with Nuclear Waste. Too fundamental of a problem, nature of matter its self.

The lack of standards is a real problem. What you describe is worse than I thought, not good.

I have allways wondered if the nuclear industry grew out of the need for spent fuel rods. Those spent rods can be used to produce nukes. Our huge nuke bomb supply may have need those rods. That would have allowed the cost of the warheads to be hidden partly in civil projects.

I know how freaked out everyone gets when there is even a hint of fuel rod reprocessing in any other country, like iran.

Z28

I wasn't sure about your state of affairs as evolution went ... sorry 'bout missing that.

The uranium used to power nuke plants is in no way, shape or form resemble the uranium used in bombs. It's as different as apples and oranges. It would take tonage of power grade NEW nuke fuel to make firecracker's worth of weapons grade uranium.

Sure, the waste could be used to create widespread panic (note panic, not destruction) if blown up into the atmosphere. However, more destruction and havoc could be seen by polluting water supplies with a chemical agent.

And the agent is much cheaper and less conspicuous that a many 8x8x8 cubicles of waste needed to do the same job.

[Jeff97FST/A]

I've seen $3.15 in my part of New England - for 89 octane (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rant2.gif)

Must've been one strong hurricane to have an effect on gas that's already in the stations tanks (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rant.gif)

[Pilot]

3.29 here for 93 octane... Ugh.

[JonV]

I just paid 1.24 for a liter of regular.

1.24 x 4.5 ltr/ imp. gal = 5.54

I think we are going to see a lot of more of this too. In Europe they pay much more than we do here. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

[z28barnett]

Premium $3.05 southern missouri.

[z28barnett]

[quote=mitchntx,Aug 31 2005, 11:31] [[/QUOTE]
I wasn't sure about your state of affairs as evolution went ... sorry 'bout missing that.

The uranium used to power nuke plants is in no way, shape or form resemble the uranium used in bombs. It's as different as apples and oranges. It would take tonage of power grade NEW nuke fuel to make firecracker's worth of weapons grade uranium.

Sure, the waste could be used to create widespread panic (note panic, not destruction) if blown up into the atmosphere. However, more destruction and havoc could be seen by polluting water supplies with a chemical agent.

And the agent is much cheaper and less conspicuous that a many 8x8x8 cubicles of waste needed to do the same job. [/quote]
Mitch,

Fuel rods are reprocessed for nuke production.

See below.

Z28

How Does Reprocessing Fuel Rods Help Build Nuclear Bombs?
By Brendan I. Koerner
Posted Friday, April 25, 2003, at 3:41 PM PT


Among North Korea's feather-ruffling moves this week came the claim that the country has reprocessed 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods. What does rod reprocessing have to do with building fresh nukes?

It's basically the poor man's way of obtaining plutonium, the substance most prized for the fabrication of nuclear weapons because of its relative stability. The fuel rods in question are leftovers from North Korea's reactors, which were ostensibly built for nonmilitary purposes. Such rods are initially filled with enriched uranium—that is, uranium that has a relatively high content of the fissile uranium-235 isotope. Naturally occurring uranium is approximately 99.3 percent uranium-238, which doesn't do the trick when inserted into a reactor. Enriched uranium has been "purified" in order to up the uranium-235 percentage to about 5 percent.

When a fuel rod is made, enriched uranium is baked into inch-long pellets and inserted into metal tubes. In the belly of a reactor, the atoms of this fuel split apart, releasing tremendous amounts of energy in the form of heat. That heat turns the surrounding water into steam, which in turn pushes a turbine. During this process, the uranium-238 converts into plutonium-239, which is ideal for weapons production. However, since civilian reactors are designed to keep pumping until all the fuel's spent, the morphing doesn't stop there. Some of those plutonium-239 atoms absorb an additional neutron and become plutonium-240. The new isotope isn't fissile and thus not what military engineers crave.

After a year or two, the fuel rods are tapped out. They're often transported to a nearby water tank, where they cool down for a while—the irradiation process creates so much heat that rods need one to three years to become sufficiently chilly. That's when reprocessing can commence. The simplest approach is to dissolve the rods in nitric acid, a technique known as the Purex Process. The end result is approximately 96 percent uranium, 1 percent plutonium, and 3 percent assorted toxic byproducts. (The ratio of Pu240 to Pu239 in the resulting plutonium depends on a variety of factors, including the percentage of uranium-235 in the pellet and the length of time the rod was used.) Proponents of nuclear energy argue that recycling the rods reduces waste, since the plutonium and uranium can be reused as fuel.

The downside is that the resulting plutonium can also be used for more nefarious projects. The U.S. Department of Energy officially defines "weapons-grade plutonium" as that containing at least 93 percent of the fissile plutonium-239 isotope. (The rest can be nonfissile Pu240.) But even crude "reactor grades"—those that contain less than 80 percent Pu239—can still pack a wallop. There's also no way of knowing whether the North Koreans operated their reactors specifically to minimize the conversion of plutonium-239 to plutonium-240, which would produce truly menacing nuclear material.



http://slate.msn.com/id/2082084/