Facebook   Twitter    e-mail newsletter    YouTube    RSS Feed    Android App    iPhone and iPad App     BlackBerry App    


Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 160

Thread: Fracking in the Karoo - why it's bad

  1. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodeamus View Post
    o really, even if it is oxidised? You know solar panels spend their days in the sun......you can treat it, but that treatment is made out of deletable energy sources!
    Far easier to recover an oxidised metal than a burnt fuel...


    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodeamus View Post
    The amount of waste can be diluted so it becomes marginal, also the total waste of Koeberg isn't even the size of 1 house yet. I call that very significant.
    I'm not talking about waste, I'm talking about sustainability. Nuclear fuel is not an unlimited resource.

  2. #92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodeamus View Post
    the total waste of Koeberg isn't even the size of 1 house yet. I call that very significant.
    Maybe got a source for this? Sounds interesting.
    "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove..."

  3. #93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JStrike View Post
    If we can generate billions of revenue, then polluting water sounds like a pretty small compromise
    You sound like you stand to gain directly from this contract.

  4. #94
    Super Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Durbanville, Cape Town
    Posts
    16,371

    Default

    If we can generate billions of revenue, then polluting water sounds like a pretty small compromise
    Scary, really scary.
    -
    Quote Originally Posted by lafrica View Post
    they (criminals ) are just trying to make a living .

  5. #95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by joelus View Post
    Does fracking for shale gas come cheap?
    http://www.businessweek.com/articles...ping-overseas/

    According to the above article US gas prices have dropped 86% as a result of fracking so it has the potential to significantly reduce prices in SA.

  6. #96

    Default

    I cannot believe how shortsighted some people are. I love the Karoo and it's amazing diversity. I also know how fragile it is. Fracking will kill the Karoo. If that does not concern you and you are just worried about the billions of revenue, which all goes to a greedy multinational corporation and a corrupt government, I think there must be something seriously wrong with you.

  7. #97
    Super Grandmaster alloytoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Aotearoa
    Posts
    11,468
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity1 View Post
    http://www.businessweek.com/articles...ping-overseas/

    According to the above article US gas prices have dropped 86% as a result of fracking so it has the potential to significantly reduce prices in SA.
    It has apparently also reduced US emissions.
    a2

    Join the Great Facebook Deactivation from 1 September 2012

  8. #98

    Default

    Came across this buried in the comments section of that article - haven't seen it posted here

    "The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never be certain they are real"-Abraham Lincoln

  9. #99

  10. #100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrbitalDawn View Post
    Maybe got a source for this? Sounds interesting.
    I forgot where my old source was, but I saw the outside of the container myself
    Facts on nuclear waste from Koeberg

    Information from Eskom

    There are three levels of waste at Koeberg, South Africa's only nuclear power station. These are caegorised as: low level waste, intermediate waste and high level waste (spent fuel).

    Low level waste comprises of refuse that may or may not be contaminated with minute quantities of radioactive material. This waste is usually in the form of clothing, plastics, insulation material, paper and coveralls and is generated in the controlled radiological areas of the power station. These items are sealed in clearly marked metal drums and stored on site until they are shipped to the Vaalputs national nuclear waste repository that is run by the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (NECSA). Vaalputs is the national repository for low and intermediate level waste some 500 km north of Koeberg.

    Intermediate level waste consists of evaporator concentrate, spent resins, filter cartridges and contaminated scrap metal. This waste is more radioactive than the refuse but much less radioactive than spent fuel. It is mixed in a specific way with concrete and sealed into appropriately marked concrete drums. These concrete drums are shipped to Vaalputs. If a shipment of these concrete drums were involved in a road accident and fell from the truck and fractured at point of impact, the radioactive materials encapsulated within the concrete would retain the contents without leakage, with no threat to the public or environment.
    High Level Waste comprises the metal and mineral waste left over once spent fuel has been reprocessed to extract any re-usable Uranium or Plutonium. HLW has been around since mankind started its large-scale nuclear activities.
    Spent nuclear fuel is radioactively extremely dangerous and therefore needs to be safely housed. When it is removed from the reactor vessel it is stored in special "pools" known as fuel pools.

    At Koeberg the two pressurised water reactors generate approximately 32 tons of spent fuel each year. Over a 40-year design lifetime of the plant this would add up to 1 280 tons. Each spent fuel assembly contains radioactive materials that fall into three categories.


    The first category contains the fission products such as Caesium, Iodine, Strontium, and Xenon which are created when Uranium or Plutonium nuclei are split. They are the most predominant radioactive nuclides of spent fuel when it is removed from the reactor vessel and transferred to the spent fuel pool where they decay to low levels of radioactivity relatively quickly. After 1 000 years only the longest-lived fission products such as Iodine 129, remain.

    In the second category are the actinides, which are isotopes of Uranium and heavier metals including Plutonium. These are long-lived nuclides which take 10 000 years to decay.

    The last category contains the structural materials of the fuel assemblies which become radioactive through irradiation by neutrons. They add a small amount of radiation to the spectrum of the spent fuel assembly total and decay in about 500 years.

    A remarkable feature of spent fuel is that after one year of storage only 1% of the radioactivity remains in the assembly because the radioactive nuclides in the material decay so quickly. After 10 years, only 0,5% of the original radioactivity remains.

    What is left after 10 000 years of storage is about 0,0002% of the radioactive content and most of that would be Plutonium and other actinides. After this period the radioactivity has decayed to below what would have been there had the Uranium been left undisturbed in the ground.

    During the 1990s Koeberg took a decision to go for the high-density storage racks for its spent fuel assemblies. New technology enables us to pack more spent fuel into racks making it possible to store all the spent fuel that will be generated over the design lifetime of the station (40 years). These would number approximately 3 000, depending on how many refueling outages Koeberg has. This re-racking project was completed in 2002.

    Two different storage regions have been created in the spent fuel pools. The first region has 360 positions in three racks and will store the most reactive fuel. This is the fuel that has spent the least amount of time in the reactor and therefore contains relatively large amounts of U235, which could still undergo fission.
    In this region the fuel assemblies are further apart so that there is no chance that they may start a spontaneous fission reaction. Using neutron-absorbing materials in the construction further controls criticality (the start of the fission process) so that the number of thermal neutrons in the region is always below that required to start a chain reaction. The racks are made up of stainless steel with plates of borated steel attached to the outside surface of each stainless steel storage channel. Borated stainless steel contains 1,7% boron as part of its chemical composition. Boron is an excellent neutron absorbing material.

    The second region contains the bulk of the spent fuel. The assemblies are closer together since this fuel has spent a longer period in the reactor and hence has a lower residual amount of fissile uranium. The racks in this region are constructed of the same materials as those in region one. In 1996 four spent fuel casks that can house 28 spent fuel assemblies each were bought. These casks are dual purpose transport and/or storage casks and are specially designed to contain the radioactivity associated with 10-year old spent fuel assemblies.

    Due to delays in the re-racking project a decision was taken to use these casks as an interim contingency measure prior to the refueling outage in April 2000 and January 2001, in order to ensure that there would be enough space in the spent fuel pools to allow fuel unloading to occur .

    The empty casks weigh 97 740 kg and are made of ductile cast iron. The cast iron walls are 358 mm thick providing the structural strength needed, heat dissipation as well as shielding from the radiation emitted by the spent fuel assemblies. A layer of polyethylene rods are contained inside the wall of the cask to provide a shield against the neutrons emitted by the fuel.

    The cask design ensures that the remaining thermal heat in the fuel assemblies is dissipated naturally. The advantage of this is that no heat removal systems that will require monitoring or maintenance are necessary. The heat losses occur in the same way as it does when a cup of tea is allowed to cool down.

    Eskom has already commented on the draft nuclear radioactive waste policy that has been drawn up by the Department of Minerals and Energy Affairs. Eskom is in the mean time looking at all the options available world wide for the handling of spent fuel but will have to abide by the measures laid down in this radioactive waste policy for final storage of spent fuel.
    http://www.eepublishers.co.za/articl...m-koeberg.html

  11. #101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigAl-sa View Post
    I'm not talking about waste, I'm talking about sustainability. Nuclear fuel is not an unlimited resource.
    What's your point?

    We have the technology to safely and cheaply generate power from uranium.
    Uranium isn't useful for much except as a power source.
    Uranium is far more efficient - by many orders of magnitude - at generating power, inexpensively, than any other power source currently available to man.
    There is enough uranium available to us to power the ENTIRE PLANET for at least two centuries, and perhaps up to 60 millenia: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-deposits-last

    First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium—a 60,000-year supply at present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.
    Nuclear power is there to be used. Why not use it to break our dependence on fossil fuels while we find a truly sustainable way?
    <html><code><style>

    Big guns and bigger starships: the world's largest game universe awaits. EVE Online.
    Why Desktop Linux is a steaming pile of failure.

  12. #102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity1 View Post
    http://www.businessweek.com/articles...ping-overseas/

    According to the above article US gas prices have dropped 86% as a result of fracking so it has the potential to significantly reduce prices in SA.
    It won't do a thing to our economy and fuel prices because the prices are regulated and shell will cash in on those regulations. Shell is the only one who will benefit and their fuel isn't even that good.
    Sometimes I talk to myself if I feel like having an intelligent conversation.

  13. #103
    Karmic Sangoma ghoti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hotel California
    Posts
    33,784
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantum Theory View Post
    I cannot believe how shortsighted some people are. I love the Karoo and it's amazing diversity. I also know how fragile it is. Fracking will kill the Karoo. If that does not concern you and you are just worried about the billions of revenue, which all goes to a greedy multinational corporation and a corrupt government, I think there must be something seriously wrong with you.
    Hit the nail on the head.
    I believe Ayn Rand's first love poem went: Roses are red, violets are blue, finish this poem yourself you dependent parasite".
    Colbert

  14. #104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Assimilator View Post
    What's your point?

    We have the technology to safely and cheaply generate power from uranium.
    Uranium isn't useful for much except as a power source.
    Uranium is far more efficient - by many orders of magnitude - at generating power, inexpensively, than any other power source currently available to man.
    There is enough uranium available to us to power the ENTIRE PLANET for at least two centuries, and perhaps up to 60 millenia: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-deposits-last



    Nuclear power is there to be used. Why not use it to break our dependence on fossil fuels while we find a truly sustainable way?
    Nuclear power isn't clean either, all that radio active waste has to go somewhere and if there is a disaster then there is a real big problem. Look at the Fukushima and Chernobyl Plant. Germany is shutting down its Nuclear power program and you want SA to stat one up?

    The only real clean power source is Fusion power and that is still some years away.
    Sometimes I talk to myself if I feel like having an intelligent conversation.

  15. #105
    Karmic Sangoma ghoti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hotel California
    Posts
    33,784
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChocolateBadger View Post
    Nuclear power isn't clean either, all that radio active waste has to go somewhere
    If we can afford to send satellites into space to watch TV I am not sure why we can not launch the waste at the sun...

    and if there is a disaster then there is a real big problem. Look at the Fukushima Plant.
    Has no relevance to us. We are not in tsunami or earthquake zones.

    The only real clean power source is Fusion power and that is still some years away.
    You mean like the sun?
    I believe Ayn Rand's first love poem went: Roses are red, violets are blue, finish this poem yourself you dependent parasite".
    Colbert

Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 891011 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Fracking and the SKA in the Karoo
    By rpm in forum Broadband and IT News
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 18-06-2011, 02:28 PM
  2. America's 'fracking' debate
    By Deenem in forum News and Current Affairs
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-05-2011, 05:38 AM
  3. Article: No confusion about fracking in SA
    By rpm in forum News and Current Affairs
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 28-04-2011, 08:59 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 26-04-2011, 10:04 AM
  5. Karoo Fracking - help make a difference
    By BCO in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 23-04-2011, 09:28 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •