[Gllug] [OT] Technobabble

[Chris Bell]

On Thu 17 Nov, Dylan wrote:
> 
> On Thursday 17 Nov 2005 14:57, Nix wrote:

> >
> > - Coal, oil: doesn't scale, environmentally damaging, relies on
> > nonrenewable resources. (Plus oil is so terribly useful for other
> > things that it's a damn crime to burn it.)
> 
> No argument there, except that almost all oil derived products and 
> materials have analogs derived from plant sources (albeit they are more 
> expensive at the moment due to the recovery of development costs and 
> the economies of scale.) In addition, there is the transportation of 
> the fuel (including gas) since we are now a net importer of fossil 
> fuels.
> 
   Coal also contains significant amounts of radioactive xenon gas, which
results in a very high level of radiation around coal fired power stations.

> 
> >
> > - Nuclear fission: a nasty, but comparatively small-scale, waste
> > disposal problem; fairly nasty fuel, very nasty waste products,
> > decommissioning very hard because the reactor housing is rendered
> > radioactive by neutron bombardment. Many varieties also have severe
> > side effects on failure and a large capital cost, but not all; some
> > modern nuclear reactor designs are ridiculously safe (as in, break
> > the reactor chamber open and fly a jet aircraft into it and there is
> > *still* no radiation hazard) but few have been built because of the
> > bad rep nuclear power got in the gung-ho days of the 50s to 70s when
> > (much) less safe designs were used. Chernobyl-style events are quite
> > difficult in any case unless you're a bloody idiot (as the Chernobyl
> > Unit 4 people were; the decision of the people at TMI-2 to vent
> > radioactive products directly to the atmosphere was also something
> > that nobody would do today because they'd be crucified if they did).
> 
> Yes, the modern reactor designs are orders of magnitude safer and 
> significantly more efficient and cleaner. I find it hard to rationalise 
> a "comparatively small-scale, waste disposal problem" though. They have 
> a low impact wrt emissions, but the mining and processing of the fuel 
> is seriously damaging (maybe we don't worry about that since the U235 
> doesn't occur in useful extractable amounts anywhere close by.) All in 
> all, though, they are probably a "least worst" option at the moment.
> 
> 
   I thought that our nuclear facilities were powered by U235 extracted from
mines in the UK, as it is found in the same areas as tin, lead, and silver.
   I know someone from Cornwall who was told to find a piece of rock to take
to school, and test it with a geiger counter. The piece of rock he picked up
took the geiger counter straight to the end stop. Not only was it way over
the legal limit to be taken in to the school, the school was not allowed to
take it out again and had to wait for an official with a suitable lead box
to collect it.


-- 
Chris Bell

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug