[Land-speed] Alternative Fuels>From>Jim McNaul

[joseph lance]

Mayf;

The problem with Chernoble was not "cheapness"---it was an asinine design
(positive reactivity feedback and inherently unstable) and the incompetent
operating crew had to violate their own safety regulations to cause the
accident.

Nobody, except the Russians, has ever used Chernoble type reactors to
generate electricity. Our reactors have negative reactivity feedback and are
inherently stable. At Three Mile Island the initiating cause was a leaky
valve which was ignored but the safety systems worked and the public was
protected.

The Oak Ridge electricity usage doesn't count---that was used to make 90 % +
enriched Uranium for bombs. The Uranium for civilian reactors requires only
5 % enrichment which is not "bomb grade" and centrifuges can do that--the
old Oak Ridge electrical method is not used.

Uranium mining and processing and nuclear waste disposal may be "dirty" but
are much smaller in scale than that of coal usage. And since coal contains a
small amount of Uranium, the public gets a bigger radiation dose from a coal
fired power plant than it does from a nuclear plant.

The amount of Uranium mining could be reduced significantly if we recycled
spent reactor fuel (which would reduce the amount of nuclear waste stored in
Nevada by a factor of ten)-- presently it's not economically attractive but
it will be in the future.

Nuclear plants get a bad rap politically primarily because the fear mongers
play on the public's fear of radiation ---while all of us live in a sea of
natural radiation which is hundreds of times more intense.

Lance

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "drmayf" <drmayf at mayfco.com>
To: <jgmagoo at comcast.net>
Cc: "land-speed-digest" <land-speed at autox.team.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Land-speed] Alternative Fuels>From>Jim McNaul


> Jim, how do you produce hydrogen cheaply?  Not by electrolysis, not by
> reforming natural gas or coal by products, not by solar electricity.
> How? That has been the largest stumbling block of all. It takes as much
> energy to  make hydrogen as it gives back in energy.  Point me in the
> right direction. Oh, the best method I have seen so far is the 13 enzyme
> reaction for starches (sugars).  This would work well, maybe becasue yo
> just need water, sugar, and the enzymes.   What other methods are there?
>
> Oh, wait I see that you mention NUkes for the electricity. Yep that
> would do it all right. I invite you to Nevada to join the bazillion
> people who do not want the waste product repository in our back yard.
> Will you let us use your state instead?  Nukes, while they could be
> cheap, are dirty. The mining and processing makes an environmental mess.
> Enriching it to reactor grade takes a ton of electricity to do (see Oak
> Ridge). Breeders are even worse becasue you ultimately have to get rid
> of the sodium as well as the rest of the waste.  And if you relax the
> standards to build them cheaper, then Chernoble is a possibility. Was
> very close at 3 mile Island.  Fusion is 50 years at the earliest.
>
> Wind is also a possibility. I saw a program where in the Netherlands
> that a private company is installing several thousand windmills. But
> when he was done, it would only suppor tabout 100,000 homes and the cost
> was jinormous!.
>
> So we are in a crunch. Or will be in a few short years. IMHO...
>
> mayf, way off and far out in Pahrump, where the Nuke repository is not
> very far away at all...