Comments on: Why Nuclear Power is a Non-Response to Peak Oil – Part 1. Do We Really Have to Argue All This Again? http://transitionculture.org/2006/05/02/why-nuclear-power-is-a-non-response-to-peak-oil-part-1-do-we-really-have-to-argue-all-this-again/ An Evolving Exploration into the Head, Heart and Hands of Energy Descent Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:35:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: dan http://transitionculture.org/2006/05/02/why-nuclear-power-is-a-non-response-to-peak-oil-part-1-do-we-really-have-to-argue-all-this-again/comment-page-1/#comment-1804 dan Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:55:54 +0000 http://transitionculture.org/?p=307#comment-1804 Ref: Scientific American , Dec 2005 "smarter use of nuclear waste" According to this article we can eliminate %98(!) of the nuclear waste by reprocessing and reusing it. not only that but the final unusable waste would be of isotopes that would decay to background levels in a few hundred years, not tens or hundreds of thousands of years.(!!) in another 50 years we might even find a use for that.(?){this is pure speculation on my part,nevertheless waste that decays in a few hundred years is far preferable to creating a "nuclear priesthood" or creating some kind of warning pyramid or whatever to keep our descendants[or the intelligent descendants of hairy nosed wombats] or whatever from poisioning themselves} This along with replacing our current nuclear plants with smaller , current "inherently self limiting" designs as opposed to the 30-40 year old designs we have now(which are not self-limiting) For those who don't know, an "inherently self-limiting reactor" is designed so that there is no way for it to run out of control or melt down. If it gets too hot , the reaction slows down, causing it to cool. even in total, catastrophic loss of coolant , the reaction shuts down, the reason that the reactors are smaller is so that they can radiate sufficient excess heat to the outside to prevent anything from melting. they are designed in such a way that"more heat=slower reactions" They are designed not to NEED any emergency backup system {that could possibly fail, as evidenced by the events in Sweden) These "slow-down", and "shut-down" features are built in to the design , and do not rely on control rod position or any mechanical system (such as cooling pumps)which could fail, or be accidentally(or deliberately) be set or controlled improperly . These designs now exist, however it has been the incredibly vocal opposition of the "no nukes" people that has prevented them from being built. As far as other alternative power sources are concerned? WE NEED TO INVEST FAR MORE IN EVERY ONE OF THEM! our energy problem is not simple and there is no simple solution to it. We also need to PROMOTE ENERGY CONSERVATION! I read an article(I believe it was on MSN) about a group of architects who were designing "green" energy efficient buildings for the reconstruction or New Orleans, THIS IS GREAT! We can (if we have the determination) turn the tragedy into a triumph by rebuilding GREEN! think of the advantages of reducing the energy bills of the poor residents there by as much as %75. not to mention the reduced energy consumption overall. I reject the arguments of the extreme "no-nukes is good nukes" bunch , while I don't think nuclear is the whole solution,intelligently used it IS part of the solution. Ref: Scientific American , Dec 2005 “smarter use of nuclear waste”
According to this article we can eliminate %98(!) of the nuclear waste by reprocessing and reusing it.
not only that but the final unusable waste would be of isotopes that would decay to background levels in a few hundred years, not tens or hundreds of thousands of years.(!!) in another 50 years we might even find a use for that.(?){this is pure speculation on my part,nevertheless waste that decays in a few hundred years is far preferable to creating a “nuclear priesthood” or creating some kind of warning pyramid or whatever to keep our descendants[or the intelligent descendants of hairy nosed wombats] or whatever from poisioning themselves}
This along with replacing our current nuclear plants with smaller , current “inherently self limiting” designs as opposed to the 30-40 year old designs we have now(which are not self-limiting)
For those who don’t know, an “inherently self-limiting reactor” is designed so that there is no way for it to run out of control or melt down.
If it gets too hot , the reaction slows down, causing it to cool.
even in total, catastrophic loss of coolant , the reaction shuts down, the reason that the reactors are smaller is so that they can radiate sufficient excess heat to the outside to prevent anything from melting. they are designed in such a way that”more heat=slower reactions”
They are designed not to NEED any emergency backup system {that could possibly fail, as evidenced by the events in Sweden)
These “slow-down”, and “shut-down” features are built in to the design , and do not rely on control rod position or any mechanical system (such as cooling pumps)which could fail, or be accidentally(or deliberately) be set or controlled improperly .
These designs now exist, however it has been the incredibly vocal opposition of the “no nukes” people that has prevented them from being built.

As far as other alternative power sources are concerned? WE NEED TO INVEST FAR MORE IN EVERY ONE OF THEM! our energy problem is not simple and there is no simple solution to it.
We also need to PROMOTE ENERGY CONSERVATION!
I read an article(I believe it was on MSN) about a group of architects who were designing “green” energy efficient buildings for the reconstruction or New Orleans, THIS IS GREAT! We can (if we have the determination) turn the tragedy into a triumph by rebuilding GREEN! think of the advantages of reducing the energy bills of the poor residents there by as much as %75.
not to mention the reduced energy consumption overall.

I reject the arguments of the extreme “no-nukes is good nukes” bunch , while I don’t think nuclear is the whole solution,intelligently used it IS part of the solution.

]]> By: tom http://transitionculture.org/2006/05/02/why-nuclear-power-is-a-non-response-to-peak-oil-part-1-do-we-really-have-to-argue-all-this-again/comment-page-1/#comment-438 tom Mon, 08 May 2006 14:39:25 +0000 http://transitionculture.org/?p=307#comment-438 i hope i live to see the day when all of you greenies are screaming at the powers to be why in heavens name they did not build nuke plants during the beginning of the 21st. century. my oh my what will you do without 900 cable channels and broadband internet service ? no starbucks ... no easy motoring...(thank you for the phrase , JHK) , no jet set service to the vacation of your dreams. oh my goodness. will we have to walk to the grocery ? why are there no more hairdressers in the mall ? they can rename SOHO to SOHARD...as to 'so hard to get to' without subways and trains and buses. sorry greenies...the only way for your utopia to work is if five and a half BILLION people all of a sudden vanish from the face of this earth. then there will be enough oil for the remaining idiots to fight over. i hope i live to see the day when all of you greenies are screaming at the powers to be why in heavens name they did not build nuke plants during the beginning of the 21st. century. my oh my what will you do without 900 cable channels and broadband internet service ?
no starbucks … no easy motoring…(thank you for the phrase , JHK) , no jet set service to the vacation of your dreams. oh my goodness. will we have to walk to the grocery ? why are there no more hairdressers in the mall ? they can rename SOHO to SOHARD…as to ‘so hard to get to’ without subways and trains and buses.
sorry greenies…the only way for your utopia to work is if five and a half BILLION people all of a sudden vanish from the face of this earth. then there will be enough oil for the remaining idiots to fight over.

]]>