Welcome to the php ebenezer's messageboard
see bottom for more info

HOME


Re: Re: energy (stamina - wink@e) (26/07/22 09:07:08)
    ive been hearing about small and safe reactors for more than a few years now but had very little time to follow up on the subject. was busy with solar (oh the irony)

    i dont like seeing what all these "renewables" are doing to the local wildlife (and people)

    imo what we should be looking for is something that is:

    1) safe (something at least like "failure chance" = "winning the lottery" is fine by me)
    2) low ecological impact (including: initial production, eol, surface area[out of our faces and natures face])
    3) long lifespan.
    4) low maintenance.
    5) high efficiency (and supplies energy on demand 24/7)
    6) cost effectiveness (even excluding the first 3 years, lets say it would still be an attractive proposition for near sighted politicians :) )
    this also has to include all maintenance and eol cost (in case of nuclear, also refueling)

    a tall order. did i forget anything?

    so, solar FARMS, "accumulators", wind turbines... out of the question.
    thats not saving nature, thats more land grab, thats pissing on natures head (and in our own eyes imo)
    when i travel to the golan heights area these days my eyes bleed. not to mention the impact on birds and other animals around. (google for: golan heights wind turbines)
    same with the desert. solar panels pop up like mushrooms. pretty soon it will stop being a desert.

    >> Again: Is there published methods for converting weapons grade uranium and plutonium into reactor grade material?

    https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/military-warheads-as-a-source-of-nuclear-fuel.aspx

    not exactly a publication but i did hear about this in early 2k i think. i have yet to read the full article (and already spotted a mistake)
    also, not sure what to make of this "association". wikipedias description is opaque.

    >> provided the reactors are used to burn off all that 235U and 239Pu that is now lying around in nuclear warheads

    the trouble with most reactors in use is their architecture, size and the fact they are all prone to the same faults (chernobyl, 3 mile island, fukushima...). i wouldnt want to live near one. otoh...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095809916301527

    considering i lived most of my life near the refineries and petrochemical plants in the gulf of haifa, the safety level of the TWR is _apparently_ something i could sleep well at night even if i were in close proximity to one.

    i shudder at the thought what will happen to the _old_ reactor in dimona when a serious earthquake strikes... in the mean time ill go wash the dust and mud from those solar panels. maybe givem a waxing too...
jm


back to main board expand thread
Name email
Subject
Enter your message here :
Ask for confirmation if modified Are you not a spammer?
   
Show allowed tags
 
Show me the last post since :
local time shift :

come again

messageboard's PHP script is a courtesy of Laurent

 This board has been visited 254180 timesCurrent time is 11/08/22 12:29:05
Re: Re: energy (stamina - wink@e)