posted
I'd be one of the first among "normal" people -- that is, ordinary citizens not actively involved in any specific campaign towards it -- to endorse the adoption of "clean energy" programs that Dubya's been touting this year, since his State of the Union address in January. Using hydrogen fuel to replace petroleum products is definitely a Good Thing in my book.
The proposal to build thousands of miniature nuclear (fission) power plants to produce that fuel is not.
A few quotables for both sides of the issue:
quote:Each modular plant would produce as little as one-tenth of the energy of a single light-water reactor. And since by some estimates the United States would need the equivalent of 500 light-water reactors to produce enough hydrogen, it may take thousands of modular plants to get the same job done.
quote:Gue bases her criticisms on the risks many people associate with the 103 so-called "Generation III" reactors currently operating in the United States. These are the aging, leaking, water-cooled reactors built before Three Mile Island nearly melted down in 1979. The new plants will supposedly be safer. "But even with their new designs," said Gue, "I'm still not satisfied they've dealt with the waste issue."
Nuclear waste has never been a serious problem, if you ask the industry. "People automatically picture vast quantities of drums, oozing green slime and ruining our lives," said John Ritch, director general of the World Nuclear Association. "But the truth is that all of the waste produced by all of the world's nuclear reactors could fit in a two-story building, on an area the size of a basketball court."
I dunno about this. On one hand, using fission nuke plants to bring in the grand new era of "clean" power doesn't sound like a very well-thought out idea. But on the other hand, there probably isn't any other good alternative. After all, fusion power plants -- which would themselves be a lot cleaner -- would also require the same hydrogen fuel that they'd be used to produce, right?
I can't verify the claim concerning the amount or danger of the nuclear waste -- and that's personally may main fear -- but if the argument I quoted above concerning volume is true, then it may not be quite as bad as I thought...
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I won't really argue with "cleaner" -- certainly the lack of air pollution is a huge plus. (Drums of radioactive waste aside, of course. )
But safer? I dunno... frankly, I don't like it whenever I drive south on Route 72 towards Delaware City, and pass the big sign with the "EMERGENCY SIREN" notice in case of some disaster at the Salem nuclear power plant 10 miles away across the river. Sure, there's never been a major (or even minor) disaster there -- though it's had a few malfunctions over the years that shut it down at various times -- but having the constant reminder doesn't make me feel too comfortable.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
Yes, but last time we tried that, the rig got torn apart.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Didn't Boston try something like that before, and caused a big stinking swampy area that was eventually filled in? Of course, that was a wee bit of time ago, so the newer plans may be better.....
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Would'nt dozens of miniature nuclear plants pose a security risk of idiotic proportions? One of the single biggest concerns of the Feds and CIA is the security of fissionable materials and the people with the knowledge to make and sell a "dirty bomb".
Here in south Florida we have National Guardsmen with machine guns guarding our ports, nuclear power plant, federal courthouses, and (still) both international airports. That's just in sunny SOUTH florida mind you: imagine nationwide. Dozens of small nuclear plants would either stretch security thin or privatize it into the hands of a select few rich greedy bastards. hmmmm...I wonder if any large security companies have republican campaign ties?
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Wow, this thread isn't as flammable as most. There are a few things to note about using Hydrogen as a clean fuel source. Burning it is clean indeed- but how does one get it?
The main process of getting hydrogen is by separating it from oxygen in the water molecule. Most places uses electricity to separate them in a process called electrolysis. Also during the process you lose energy in some ways, not to mention storage costs for it(hydrogen is explosive). When you tally it up, it takes more energy to create hydrogen than you get out. Why waste all that energy in a middle process that doesn't help? The only way that hydrogen will be a feasible power source is if we can create or harvest it in a fairly inexpensive manner.
"Why waste all that energy in a middle process that doesn't help?"
Well, one reason would be to start w/ a non-portable energy source and end up w/ a portable one. You can't power your car w/ a hydro-electric dam, but you can use one to make hydrogen fuel cells which will power your car.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote: You can't power your car w/ a hydro-electric dam
Unless you have *really* long extention leads...
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
quote: "But the truth is that all of the waste produced by all of the world's nuclear reactors could fit in a two-story building, on an area the size of a basketball court."
Load it up in a rocket and send it to Mercury or the sun or someplace that is already so toxic that a little extra nuclear waste won't get in the way.
-------------------- Hey, it only took 13 years for me to figure out my password...
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Of course, the problem there is the "rocket" part. Rockets do occasionally blow up, and if they're filled with toxic waste...
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I saw it pointed out somewhere, maybe Slashdot, that just finding a site for nuclear waste has cost at least four billion dollars, and that some months ago a person, or was it company, claimed they could make a good start on a space elevator with only eight. Hmm.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
