Re: Autonomous scooters

LOL! Tense, like PAST tense.

Wind power is great out where no one has to hear it. Solar is fine but will get you later when replacement time or STORMS kill the panels.

Nuclear is okay but mining and burying of spent fuel kills the appeal.

Hydroelectric is fantastic, and I don't care about the magnets. LOL!

And to Graham.....who are the morons that listen to fake news and call OTHERS morons? Sounds like MY way or the highway to me. Kinda like Schumer and Pelosi....LOL!

Re: Autonomous scooters

> Don Ohio Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> Nuclear is okay but mining and burying of spent fuel kills the

> the appeal.

The spent fuel problem is exaggerated greatly here in the US and Canada where we use woefully inefficient single-cycle reactors that just extract the most easily accessible energy. Even European plants are like 3 times more efficient than ours, but they still don't compare to MSRs.

To give you an extremely-condensed version of a presentation I've given, minus the power point, flowcharts, and Geiger counter demonstration: When you run a water-cooled reactor on uranium you get four basic products:

1 - Depleted Uranium

2 - Long half-life, low radiation fission products

3 - Medium half-life actinides that are both very dangerous and long lived

4 - Short half-life, high radiation fission products

It's that #3 category that causes all the trouble, having to be buried and sealed away, assuming it even gets that far: it often doesn't, instead it just sits in a spent fuel pool, just waiting for some terrorist to turn the whole thing into a dirty bomb.

And it's that #3 category that molten-salt breeder reactors can "burn" to produce up to 1,621 times as much energy as you got out of the first cycle, leaving behind more of the useful #1, relatively safe #2, and short-lived #4.

Why don't we do that here? It's not as easy, and because politics: such reactors could, instead of burning actinides, be used to produce more of them for nuclear weapons. Which is fine for a government-owned facility in Russia or India, but not so fine for a private corporation. We'd have to nationalise or heavily regulate the energy industry, and oh god I can hear the conservatives polishing their pitchforks already so I'm gonna go and hide by getting back on topic...

> Stephen Keller Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> charging station? Its range would be limited by how far back it had to

> go, it is just dumb and unnecessary... So much $ into a low return device,

> it will never be feasible. That is all.

Now that is an excellent point. E-motorcycles are only barely feasible in an urban area as it is, and completely useless in the country. Adding the burden of having to be able to drive back to its station is asking an awful lot for a scooter.

Re: Autonomous scooters

I've never heard of salt/breeder reactors,Lia. I'll have to look into this. We produced low-enriched uranium for the common reactor. Currently the US gets 23 or more per cent of its power from nuclear.

We used to enrich high U-235 per cent U, but they SAY not since late sixties.

Re: Autonomous scooters

Hey, that's neat! For all my research, I've rarely talked with anyone who actually works on the things.

But, yeah, enriching and reprocessing, the more you do it, the more energy you can extract, but also the better the bombs you can build. I think the reactors Canada makes and sells to places like latin america run on unenriched uranium, so they pose the least proliferation risk, but, they're also similar in design to the infamous RBMK. As much as Canada says they've improved on the safety, I do wonder if they're trading proliferation risk for not only inefficiency and waste, but also meltdown risk.

Re: Autonomous scooters

I hope not! Takes serious operators and failsafe contingency plans, both administrative and physical, to safely extract power from Nuclear material,even at only 2.5 % U-235 assay.

Re: Autonomous scooters

I mean, you have a plant, it runs great for 30-40 years, there's nobody there who's even on edge anymore, push the buttons, ignore the warnings. that's when it gets scary, power companies trying to eke out every last dime and underpaying a short staff of employees to keep the thing safe and wahts worst is most of the time it works, until it doesn.t. And while obody likes regulation, regulation is probably a good way to keep nuclear safe. maybe? Yall seem to know It better than me.

Re: Autonomous scooters

You nailed it there! Three Mile Island was management/operator complacency all over. Only the failsafe contingencies stopped the catastrophe from expanding.

Re: Autonomous scooters

We almost had our own in Ohio, almost pure luck that didn't end much worse

Re: Autonomous scooters

To which are you referring?

Re: Autonomous scooters

Andrew Squiggman /

The one you were working on don.Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/19 10:57PM by silverside61.

Re: Autonomous scooters

> Andrew Squiggman Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> The one you were working on don.

WRONG!

Re: Autonomous scooters

Fukushima was another case. TEPCO was warned four times their plant had major vulnerabilities, but they never made changes due to the Japanese cultural obsession with saving face. Later they admitted to have knowingly abstained from safety improvements, fearing the consequences of public opinion. Now I get radioactive debris washing up on my beach!

Seriously, I've gone down to the beach with a Geiger counter and found plastic with Hiragana on it that sets it off.

Re: Autonomous scooters

Davis-Besse 2002

Re: Autonomous scooters

Well, they had their generators sitting too low for one thing. Like they never get a tsunami there? Complacency.

« Go to Topic — end of thread

Want to reply to this thread?

We'd love to have you join the discussion, but first you'll need to login (or create an account).