If not Nuclear Power, then WHAT??

BCO

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
13,230
Having said that, here's something from the World Nuclear Association.

So if very low grade ores (0.01% U) were envisaged, the energy inputs for mining and milling would increase significantly, but total inputs could still only be 2.9% of outputs.
Talk about wildly divergent conclusions. Who to believe though? :confused:
 

lsuacner

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
1,659
Where's your maths? Here's what I've dug up:
Source
Also, what about all the other renewable sources combined as a complete package? YOu keep forgetting about solar thermal (I really love this), wind, tidal, wave, hydroelectric and geothermal power, NONE of which are nearly as potentially hazardous as nuclear. While I agree that modern nuclear's pretty safe you surely can't deny that it's riskier than the other sources I've just mentioned.
Factor in the energy cost to safely dispose of the solar panels.. which was conveniently not stated.
Well there is allot of alternatives, but nuclear is the primary alternative, nuclear > all. I have nothing against alternatives, but they should not be viewed as mutually exclusive to nuclear. Anything but nuclear is supplementary and secondary.

So this CIMA thing is like, for wannabe chartered accountants who didn't make the board exams then?
CIMAs in the UK make more money than CAs. I could be a CA, but I prefer to make more money. Audit firms have tried to recruit me, but if you ever had experience in audits, you realise its a *** job. Being a CA is boring, unless you stop being an auditor and become a director.
 
Last edited:

lsuacner

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
1,659
Having said that, here's something from the World Nuclear Association.

Talk about wildly divergent conclusions. Who to believe though? :confused:
Well when faced with a problem for which there is no reliable data, look at undeniable indicators, France is nuclear only about and sells energy from their surplus. Given they don't mine and extract the metals. I know some Uranium is produced in RSA, as part of the platinum mining process. They don't use "much" power, their financial statements looked insane though, huge profits.

This debate is getting old. Think this is my last post. R-bleh thingy person can enjoy his wooden fire to save electricity produced in the evil nuclear power plant.
 

jab2

Active Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
66
Well at least we know where your priorities in life lie LOL!
Show me a man who say he do not care about money, and I'll show you a liar.;)

Oops (liar/lair). See rwenzori there are things I can learn from you. (Apart from nuclear is totally bad. That one is very difficult) :)
 
Last edited:

dlk001

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
7,286
I'm busy working on a project on rock engineering issues for an underground disposal repository for Nuclear waste. This is for an underground repository in Switzerland at 400m depth. Its definately a method that would be looked at in South Africa.
 

rwenzori

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
12,360
I'm busy working on a project on rock engineering issues for an underground disposal repository for Nuclear waste. This is for an underground repository in Switzerland at 400m depth. Its definately a method that would be looked at in South Africa.
Hell man, for a small fee we'll dump it at Vaalputs! No-one cares about Vaalputs!
 

Alan

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
62,475
Yucca Mountain

Yucca MountainYucca Mountain is a ridge line in Nye County, in the south-central part of the U.S. state of Nevada. It is composed of volcanic material (mostly tuff) ejected from a now-extinct caldera-forming supervolcano. Yucca Mountain is most notable as the site of the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository, a U.S. Department of Energy terminal storage facility for spent nuclear reactor fuel and other radioactive waste.

Spent nuclear fuel is the radioactive product of electric power generation at commercial nuclear power plants, and high-level radioactive waste is the by-product from production of fissile material at defense facilities. In 1982, the United States Congress established a national policy to solve the problem of nuclear waste disposal. This policy is a federal law called the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Congress based this policy on what most scientists worldwide agreed is the best way to dispose of nuclear waste.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act [1] made the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) responsible for finding a site, building, and operating an underground disposal facility called a geologic repository. The recommendation to use a geologic repository dates back to 1957 when the National Academy of Sciences recommended that the best means of protecting the environment and public health and safety would be to dispose of the waste in rock deep underground.

The U.S. Department of Energy began studying Yucca Mountain in 1978 to determine whether it would be suitable for the nation's first long-term geologic repository for over 72,000 metric tons (144,331,200 pounds) of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste currently stored at 126 sites around the nation. In October, 2007, the DOE announced it was seeking to double the size of the Yucca Mountain repository to a capacity of 135,000 metric tons, or 288,662,400 pounds. [2]

Yucca Mountain is located in a desert on federal land adjacent to the Nevada Test Site in Nye County, Nevada. It is approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada, the fastest growing metropolitan area in the U.S.

On December 19, 1984, the DOE selected ten locations in six states for consideration as potential repository sites. This was based on data collected for nearly ten years. The ten sites were studied and results of these preliminary studies were reported in 1985. Based on these reports, President Reagan approved three sites for intensive scientific study called site characterization. The three sites were Hanford, Washington; Deaf Smith County, Texas; and Yucca Mountain.

In 1987, Congress amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and directed DOE to study only Yucca Mountain, which is already located within a former nuclear test site. The Act provided that if, at any time, Yucca Mountain is found unsuitable, studies will be stopped immediately. In theory, if that ever happens, the site will be restored and DOE will seek new direction from Congress.

On July 23, 2002, President George W. Bush signed House Joint Resolution 87 [3], allowing the DOE to take the next step in establishing a safe repository in which to store the country's nuclear waste. The Department of Energy is currently in the process of preparing an application to obtain the Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to proceed with construction of the repository.

On July 18, 2006 the DOE agreed upon March 31, 2017 as the date to open the facility and begin accepting waste

On September 8, 2006 Ward (Edward) Sproat, a nuclear industry executive formerly of PECO energy in Pennsylvania, was nominated by President Bush to lead the Yucca Mountain Project.

In the 2006 mid-term elections, the Senate majority was won by the Democratic Party. As a result, Nevada Senator Harry Reid, a long time opponent, became the Senate Majority Leader, putting him in a position to greatly affect the future of the project. Reid has said that he would continue to work to block completion of the project, and is quoted to have said "Yucca Mountain is dead. It'll never happen."[4]


[edit] The facility

Tour group entering North Portal of Yucca MountainThe purpose of the Yucca Mountain project is to comply with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1987 and develop a national site for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste storage. The present prime contractor for the project is Bechtel SAIC (a consortium of government contractors Bechtel Corporation and Science Applications International Corporation). The consortium employs 1,300 people on the project. The main tunnel of the Exploratory Studies Facility is U-shaped, 5 miles (8 km) long and 25 feet (8 m) wide. There are also several cathedral-like alcoves that branch from the main tunnel. It is in these alcoves that most of the scientific experiments are conducted. The galleries (smaller tunnels perpendicular to the main tunnel) where waste will be stored have not been constructed.

The repository zone will cover 1150 acres (4.7 km²), be 1000 feet (300 m) below the surface of the mountain and 1000 feet (300 m) above the water table. The waste will be encased in a multilayer stainless steel and nickel alloy package covered by titanium drip shields that function also as rock shields.

By early 2002, 7 billion US dollars had been spent on the project[citation needed]which has made Yucca Mountain the most studied piece of geology in the world. The Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that it has over 100 million gallons of highly radioactive waste and 2,500 metric tons of spent fuel from the development of nuclear weapons and from research activities in temporary storage.[5] The cost of the facility is being paid for by the public using nuclear generated electricity and the federal government for disposal of defense nuclear waste.

In 1998 and 2000, independent cost and schedule reviews of the program were performed by DOE contractors. On the latter review, the contractor concluded that DOE’s schedule for licensing, constructing, and opening the repository by 2010 was optimistic by about 2 years and that DOE’s estimate of the total cost of the program over its 100-plus-year lifetime—$58 billion (2000 dollars)—was understated by about $3 billion.[6]

The tunnel boring machine (TBM) that excavated the main tunnel cost 13 million US dollars and was 400 feet (125 m) in length when it was in operation. It now sits at its exit point at the South Portal (south entrance) of the facility. The short side tunnel alcoves were excavated using explosives.
 

dlk001

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
7,286
Hell man, for a small fee we'll dump it at Vaalputs! No-one cares about Vaalputs!
According to a seminar I attended last week, if demand in power increases, we will have to find alternative places.
 

NoADSLyet

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
2,496
That can (and has) happen to the generators at any power station.
So you missed the point! If we had no Nuclear we would have been in BIIIIIG shiite!. Capetown lost a lot of money when that one section went down! Thats the point. So YAy for Nuclear
 

Claymore

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
7,760
So you missed the point! If we had no Nuclear we would have been in BIIIIIG shiite!. Capetown lost a lot of money when that one section went down! Thats the point. So YAy for Nuclear
Yes, good point.
 
Top