Dear belgianfreak,
I apologise. Unreservedly. There was no call for all those 😠🙁😠🙁 s!
There is never an excuse for being rude, and I got carried away. Again, I'm sorry.😳
Of course you are right, certain small amounts of HCs one can get from plant matter. And you also did NOT say one could replace OPEC with sugar cane.
In peace,
CJ
Dear fjord,
Am I biased? Of course, aren't you? Isn't everybody?? 😉
Let me briefly put my credentials on the table.
I am currently supervising four PhD students on various aspects of the PBMR project. I have been involved in the energy field nationally and internationally for thirty years. I still lecture the top brass of the SA Defence Force on the subject of Energy and Environmental Conflict (my favourite subject).
The fact of the matter is that there is no energy crisis. There is enough to go around for another century at least. However, there is a crisis of energy supply! The oil is not "equitably distributed"!
Compare the following:
Distribution of Crude Oil reserves: (% of total known world reserves)
North America 3%
Middle East 67%
South America 12%
Distribution of Natural Gas: (same as above)
North America 6%
Middle East 29%
CIS 43%
And now see why America is worried:
US OIL DEMAND (in million barrels per day)
Domestic Production: 1985: 9, 2002: 5,5
Imported, 1985: 3, 2002: 9,2
(Sorry, RHP can't do tables)
Can you see now why Bush is justifiably concerned over happenings in the Middle East??
Nuclear would be a wonderful option for the US! 😉
Nuclear and Hydrogen. End of Global Warming, end of environmental pollution. Peace and joy all around 😏
CJ
calJust - are you looking for research funding?
perhaps you will find a grant here....
unfortunately your tech is not up and running,
so i will not buy it,
i wish you well and prosperous adventure in your pursuit of knowledge.
but remember your thirst for funding and knowledge is not as important as the real world for which it exists to assist.
Originally posted by CalJustSorry, if I insulted you by calling you biased. It has nothing to do with your technical knowledge on this subject. I am sure you surpass me many times. Your credentials only confirm me in that feeling 😉
Dear fjord,
Am I biased? Of course, aren't you? Isn't everybody?? 😉
Let me briefly put my credentials on the table.
I am currently supervising four PhD students on various aspects of the PBMR project. I have been involved in the e ...[text shortened]... end of environmental pollution. Peace and joy all around 😏
CJ
I reacted, because you brushed to easy a feeling of uneasiness towards nuclear power plants away.
At the time of Chernobyl I was often in Eastern Europe. An d I have seen from very close distance the whole process of denial of the problem in countries like Hungary, Bulgaria, not to mention the Ukraine itself. When the public was confronted with the consequences of this denial the mistrust for nuclear power grew. But also in west european countries like France the consequences were underestimated. There are still many people from west european countries who suffer the consequences of the underestimation of the radiation problems. That is why I contradicted your remark that the fear for nuclear plants is an expression of hysteria.
You may be right that at the end it will be good to overcome these concerns and to build nuclear plants. I am certain you have a more founded view on the economical and technical aspects of that. But what about the safety aspects? It becomes easier to listen to the people who possess the know-how when they do not play down the understandable concern of the general public.
Few people believed that Chernobyl would happen. But it happened. And it was not the last plant where things went dangerously wrong.
Fjord
Originally posted by CalJustDon't worry about it, my tone was hardly polite was it. For some odd reason it hit the wrong button when I tried to make a point then got told something that I knew was wrong, but I should have been more polite about discussing what was blatantly a misunderstanding.
Dear belgianfreak,
I apologise. Unreservedly. There was no call for all those 😠🙁😠🙁 s!
There is never an excuse for being rude, and I got carried away. Again, I'm sorry.😳
Of course you are right, certain small amounts of HCs one can get from plant matter. And you also did NOT say one could replace OPEC with sugar cane.
In peace,
CJ
No skin lost here
Jon
Originally posted by fjordDear Fjord,
But what about the safety aspects?
Few people believed that Chernobyl would happen. But it happened. And it was not the last plant where things went dangerously wrong.
There is no question that the safety of nuclear reactors is of primary concern to the industry. That is why it is currently so severly legislated.
The PBMR is representative of a new generation of advanced nuclear reactors. These reactors are characterized by their inherent safety properties.
The design of the PBMR is such that there is no physical process capable of causing an induced radiation hazard outside the site boundary. The PBMR does not require any of the traditional nuclear safety systems that actively guard older generation reactors against radiation release.
If you want to know more, go to www.pbmr.com
As far as hysteria is concerned: people react violently, and often irrationally, against things they don't understand, especially radiation, which can remain dangerous for thousands of years!
A few years ago I had an experience where there was a public forum where the future of SA's nuclear industry was discussed. All parties were represented, both pros and cons. SA has an active anti-nuclear lobby called "Koeberg Alert". (Koeberg is our sole nuclear power station).
One of the KA people complained that the sea water near this power station on the Atlantic Ocean coast has been raised by about 7 degrees by the station's cooling water. The question he asked was: How do we know what the effect was of this higher temperature on the ocean's fauna and flora? Another speaker answered him by saying: If you want to know what the effect is, just go to the other side of the country at the Indian Ocean coast, where the sea is already 7 degrees warmer!
My point is that often when we defend entrenched positions (on either side) it is easy to get emotional and carried away, and much more difficult to stay rational. I have the utmost sympathy for persons that experienced first-hand the results of the utter negligence of the Soviet reactor-builders. Such feelings don't get resolved easily. However, the safety aspects of the modern nuclear plants are probably as far removed from Chernobyl as the modern Volvo is removed from the Model T.
The issue of storage of spent fuel is another issue that raises the emotions of many people. You can also check this out at pbmr.com.
In peace,
CVJ
Originally posted by CalJustHi Caljust,
Dear Fjord,
There is no question that the safety of nuclear reactors is of primary concern to the industry. That is why it is currently so severly legislated.
The PBMR is representative of a new generation of advanced nuclear reactors ...[text shortened]... e. You can also check this out at pbmr.com.
In peace,
CVJ
Thanks for your information. I read parts of the web site about PBMR. That is quite an amazing innovative project. Especially the possible use of modules seems a very attractive feature. It raised also debatable questions.
The site pays a lot of attention to the internal safety of these small nuclear plants, but I could not find references or links to external reports about these important matters. Do they exist? And why are there not some links to respectable organizations who oppose nuclear power?
I could not find any description about dangers from the outside. How safe are these plants against terrorist attacks? What happens when a plane filled with explosives penetrates such a plant?
And why is there no mentioning that Exelon (US), one of the two international partners, withdrew himself in 2002? What was the reason for that withdrawal?
I believe that there will be a time that nuclear plants will be safely spread all over the world. But I strongly doubt it if we are now ready for it. I am also doubtful if such vulnerable and dangerous objects should be build and exploited by private enterprises.
My feeling was reinforced when I read some of the articles from the IAEA on nuclear material and terrorism. Here some quotes:
The September attacks make clear that the threat of large, well-organized global terrorist groups bent on causing mass destruction is not hypothetical but real.
On September 11, the threat revealed itself to be bigger, smarter, better
organized, and more deadly than the threats most of the world’s security systems were designed to defend against.
Those seeking to acquire nuclear material will go wherever it is easiest to steal, and buy it from anyone willing to sell – and the terrorists of September 11 have demonstrated global reach. Hence, vulnerable weapons-usable nuclear material anywhere is a threat to everyone everywhere. While security for nuclear material has traditionally been seen as a solely
national responsibility, the international community has an overwhelming interest in seeing that all such material is secure and accounted for.
Roughly half the U.S. commercial nuclear power plants have failed tests involving a threat of the kind specified in the regulations (typically involving only a few attackers, and an insider involved only in providing information) – where failure means that the test attackers would have been able to destroy critical safety systems.
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/Nuclear_Terrorism/bunn02.pdf.
Regards,
Fjord
Hi Fjord,
Sorry I can't write a lot the next few days.
As you rightly point out, in any nuclear plant there are two main risks (apart from the operational and storage-of-waste risks.) These are:
1 Natural disasters / accidents like earthquakes, airplane crash, etc. Fear of these is based on a breach of the "containment area". The PBMR however, has no such risk, since there is no high radiation area that can be breached. Even if the entire load of fuel is exposed (all the balls lying on the ground) there would be no radiation risk nor loss of radioactive particulates/gas into the environment. The radioactive material is only a few grams (0,5 mm) inside the graphite ball of 60mm dia. The Helium used for cooling and raising steam is not radioactive and will cause no harm if released.
2 The fear of terrorists
Because the fuel (new and spent) is so dispersed into balls, there is no weapons grade plutonium for terrorists to steal. To convert the fuel into weapons grade material you would need to put it through an enrichment plant. This is a major advantage of the PBMR.
It is far easier for terrorists to merely hijack or obtain ready-made weapons, of which there are far too many already in circulation - see a recent Readers Digest article about the condition of the nuclear stockpiles of the old Soviet Union. This risk is real and serious, but no reason to close down nuclear power development. This is similar to saying that we must stop all manufacture of explosives (used in, say, mining, demolitions, etc) because criminals can and do get their hands on them for making bombs.
Sorry if I did not answer all your questions,
CJ
Originally posted by SimonmEnergy crisis...
I recently had a discussion with some friends on this subject and thought I'd find what you all think.
We were discussing the current state of enrgy production and use through out the world and the consquences of this in the near future ...[text shortened]... nning out before we are ready worries me.
What do ya'll think?
Hmmm...
It is a lack of imagination. The Sun is just out there. All we have to do is go straight up 300 miles and build solar farms. If we get more imaginative, we can go to L2, L3 or even better Lagrange Point 5.
Never ending energy. Transmitted to us. Safely. Unendingly. For cars, airplanes, homes... in short everything.
If we have the imagination to do it. We are locked into our ground vision view of the world. Get out there. Where virtually "all" of the energy is. Space. The next frontier. But not final by any means.
The added benefit is that in so doing... we will say to ourselves... "Say! Why are we sending all this energy to earth? We have 99% of the resources of the solar system out here. Off earth. Why not build a civilization?" And we will. Or we will parish a sad and lonely bunch of apes in a few tens of thousand years of misery and war. Suffocated under the weight of our own unmittigated, unusable, uncleanable, unusable... shit.