Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#241
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Reactor Problems
"Tom Del Rosso" writes:
tiredofspam wrote: Wow, Mike... don't you think they know that it's not. Clean... those rods will need to be kept clear of anyone for 40 thousand years. So you realize that civilzation has not been around that long. What language will they be speaking then. Will the warning to the entrance be understood... It won't take us 100 years to figure out how to get the remaining energy out of them, if we try to do it at all. It won't even take that long. We already know _how_ to do it. It's called reprocessing (which was stopped for proliferation reasons, not technical reasons). scott |
#242
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Reactor Problems
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
tiredofspam wrote: Wow, Mike... don't you think they know that it's not. So if its cheap, why are they pulling the plug? Because one accident like this costs way more than the savings. And displaces thousands if not millions. Does it really cost more than all the savings for 50 years between accidents? Think about that - just for a moment. And that interval will get longer. Keeping it away from shore in a country that has tsunamis isn't that hard. Of course, we all know that the only threat is tsunamis... Clean... those rods will need to be kept clear of anyone for 40 thousand years. So you realize that civilzation has not been around that long. What language will they be speaking then. Will the warning to the entrance be understood... It won't take us 100 years to figure out how to get the remaining energy out of them, if we try to do it at all. You might be right about that. I suspect you are. So long as nothing happens in the 100 years... -- -Mike- |
#243
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Reactor Problems
Mike Marlow wrote: Tom Del Rosso wrote: tiredofspam wrote: Wow, Mike... don't you think they know that it's not. So if its cheap, why are they pulling the plug? Because one accident like this costs way more than the savings. And displaces thousands if not millions. Does it really cost more than all the savings for 50 years between accidents? Think about that - just for a moment. Ok. Now what? Note that I'm thinking about all the savings from hundreds of reactors that had no accidents. And that interval will get longer. Keeping it away from shore in a country that has tsunamis isn't that hard. Of course, we all know that the only threat is tsunamis... It sure isn't earthquakes, since all the reactors including Fukushima survived that. Clean... those rods will need to be kept clear of anyone for 40 thousand years. So you realize that civilzation has not been around that long. What language will they be speaking then. Will the warning to the entrance be understood... It won't take us 100 years to figure out how to get the remaining energy out of them, if we try to do it at all. You might be right about that. I suspect you are. So long as nothing happens in the 100 years... We can make a facility that's stable for longer than that. -- Reply in group, but if emailing add one more zero, and remove the last word. |
#244
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Reactor Problems
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote: Tom Del Rosso wrote: tiredofspam wrote: Wow, Mike... don't you think they know that it's not. So if its cheap, why are they pulling the plug? Because one accident like this costs way more than the savings. And displaces thousands if not millions. Does it really cost more than all the savings for 50 years between accidents? Think about that - just for a moment. Ok. Now what? So - what is that savings? Be sure to include all of the costs associated with nuclear energy. 11% of the world's energy is generated by nuclear power. What are the surrounding costs of that energy? It was supposed to be too cheap to meter, but then it became very expensive to administer and to deliver. So - what are those savings? Note that I'm thinking about all the savings from hundreds of reactors that had no accidents. And that interval will get longer. Keeping it away from shore in a country that has tsunamis isn't that hard. Of course, we all know that the only threat is tsunamis... It sure isn't earthquakes, since all the reactors including Fukushima survived that. You sir, have a lot to consider. Simply because something has not happened yet, is no reason not to be concerned for the cost for when it does happen. It is very short sighted to simply look at what has (or has not...) happened... yet. Clean... those rods will need to be kept clear of anyone for 40 thousand years. So you realize that civilzation has not been around that long. What language will they be speaking then. Will the warning to the entrance be understood... It won't take us 100 years to figure out how to get the remaining energy out of them, if we try to do it at all. You might be right about that. I suspect you are. So long as nothing happens in the 100 years... We can make a facility that's stable for longer than that. We can? I think the DOE would want to hear of your plan. -- -Mike- |
#245
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Reactor Problems
|
#246
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear Reactor Problems
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
O/T: Nuclear Reactor Problems | Woodworking | |||
Iran studies building nuclear fusion reactor | Metalworking | |||
Accident at at Sizewell B nuclear reactor? | UK diy | |||
Accident at at Sizewell B nuclear reactor? | UK diy |