OmegaRed wrote: High Sierras wrote: OmegaRed wrote: High Sierras wrote:
wanapasaki wrote:Wind is VERY effective... My turbines each put out 2.2 Mega Watts. Each megawatt can supply 3,000 homes...I have 63 turbines. They are very effective...
How effective are they when the wind isn't blowing?
Nuclear works all the time, whether the sun is shining or not, whether the wind is blowing or not. That's why the US navy dropped sails (you know, the original wind power!!!
)and is using nuke reactors now...it's called technology, and we need to embrace it!
Where do you dispose of the waste? I suggest starting on your property.
I believe the volume of waste is minimal for the megawattage you get out of it. Granted, the length of time to keep it around is an issue. I thought Yucca mountain, all by itself, was supposed to be big enough to handle holding ALL of the nuke waste generated to date in the US-- from all the power plants, all the radioactive stuff from the medical industry, all the research waste, all the bomb making waste (40 years worth...), all of it. In one facility. I used to have a pdf copy of a research paper the DoD sponsored trying to find a way to mark the site of Yucca for the next 10,000 years in a way that future people wouldn't disturb what they were planning on burying there. It was actually a facinating read. How do you mark something that's buried 2,000 feet underground, in a form that people who might not even understand what english writing is, and will withstand the effects of time (ever see any artifacts that was man made after 10,000 years???), and be understood as "hey, don't dig here, really bad mojo underground here!"
One other possible solution to the waste issue, why not load it up into rockets and launch it at the sun? Celestial fireworks! OOOOH! AAAAH!
I'm not disagreeing, just being the devil's advocate. Gotta get rid of it somewhere, and it's much more harmful than waste created by other energy sources. Plus Yucca would have been a MAJOR threat to national security.
Any more than having Cheyenne mountain is a major threat to national security? Any more than having the Pentagon around? If we can protect those assets from a direct attack, why would Yucca mountain be so vulnerable? I think centeralizing the waste in one facility (instead of having it spread all over the country) is the most cost efficient way to protect it. The waste at Yucca mountain was supposed to be buried 2,700 feet below ground. No way a bunker buster type bomb could get to that. From what I've read, the waste was to be sealed into 55 gal drums, then the salt in the vein they were burying it in would slowly "fuse" back around and encapsulate it for the next 10,000 years...no direct access to the materials after the salt flowed back into the voids, without serious mining equipment. And having it out in the Nevada desert, even if it was scattered all over the ground in some kind of catastrophic accident, there's no one within 100 miles to know about it. That's why we test the big bombs out in the wastes of Nevada.
OmegaRed wrote: Too bad they already spent $32 billion on it (or at least received it from companies, haven't checked in a while what the status of it all was). This doesn't touch on how we ship it there (rail or truck - again, major security risk and what happens in event of major event? Wreck,sabotage, terrorism) or geology - even though it's supposed to be stable.
The vast majority of the industrial waste generated is solid fuel rods. The rail / trucking containers they currently haul radioactive wastes around in are tested to be slammed into a concrete wall at something like 70mph and not fail. In case of a rail accident,stand the container back up, put it back on the rails, and continue on. Shipping by rail, with armed guards on the train & maybe helecopter gunship escorts, should minimize access to terrorists/saboteurs. How does France deal with storing their waste? Isn't something like 80% of thier domestic electricity generated by nukes?