Posted on 02/12/2022 10:10:21 AM PST by fireman15
There is delay between the time prices spike in the commodities markets and when our rate changes. We are still paying about a dollar a therm, which is about the same as last year. I expect that a huge increase is coming.
You and I do seem to be birds of a feather.
Yep!,
That is where I saw how far we really are away from useful fusion power.
Kevmo is invited back to the thread.
The issue with coal is pollution. Not CO2. China and India have been billowing out far more pollution than the western developed nations combined. The reason they don’t focus more on clean output is because it cuts into their profits.
That’s the thing with nuke waste. It takes very expensive hazmat teams to dispose of it. Once the cost of disposal is taken into consideration [including the 3 major accidents the world has seen], it becomes a very expensive solution.
You have more to fear living next to a Chemicals manufacturing plant than a nuclear plant.
***I was talking about walking your dog THROUGH the former plant. Even guys like you would choose to live on top of a former chem manufacturing plant [I have done so, on the former grounds of MOffett Field Officer Housing] rather than on top of an untreated nuke waste site.
No you should stop using BS.
***I think YOU’re the one spreading BS around here.
Yes inside the containment is radioactive and I would not walk in it.
***And at this point in time, Amerika has no program in place for permanent disposal of nuke waste. After 7 decades of playing around with it. Once we count the cost of disposal [including the 3 accident sites of TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushima] we will see Fission as a very expensive solution. It’s luzing ground even already, WITHOUT having a permanent program in place, due to the low cost of natural gas.
No the site is not so containmenated you cannot walk through it.
***Feel free, especially through that zone you just said you WOULDN’T walk through.
There are funds fully allocated
***That’s some serious bs right there. It is at best PARTIALLY allocated because we still don’t KNOW the final cost of permanent disposal of nuke waste.
to break down the dead unit and bury it.
***You’d be a billionaire if you had such a solution.
The TMI releases never amounted to anything that was any risk to the public.
***Not the subject of discussion, so it’s essentially a whataboutism. I agree with the fact behind it, but using it as an argument about nuke waste is a simple whataboutism.
The material can be and is safely handled and can be safely stored.
***SURE, it CAN be. But the Proper way to dispose of it is incredibly expensive at $10k/pound, which is to fly it into the sun. Other disposal plans are cheaper but far more expensive than the industry is willing to pay.
Problem is you are not interested in reality,
***Problem is that you are asserting solutions where they do not exist.
your interested in playing a cut and paste warrior
***If it’s so basic and generic then you can easily cut & paste these scientific assertions that you’re relying on. But you don’t because you can’t because there are no solutions to the problem.
and do not even understand what you are cutting and pasting.
***Feel free to post the cost projections of storing nuke waste at... say, Yucca Mountain... and why not underneath your own very house. We will all see that the nuke power industry [which was heavily subsidized since its inception] is not capable of paying that cost.
This is simply a troll post, an abuse of the mods’ protection scheme they came up with.
Kevmo, I am not playing by your ground rules.
***It is the ground rules of the forum. Not MY ground rules, JimRob’s ground rules. Although it’s a bit fuzzy to see where and how they are enforced.
No Internal Trolling Rules for FR per Jim Robinson
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3928396/posts
Please just go away and stop harassing the posters in this thread.
***Thank you for re-inviting me downthread. It is in everyone’s best interest to figure out how to generate parallel threads.
No objection Bigbob, and I hope that they do. But it is very difficult to sift through all the crap that has been injected into the LENR field by charlatans,
***Feel free to post those parallel LENR threads when you see a charlatan getting upheld, and show where they’re being a charlatan.
hucksters,
***Again, feel free.
and true believers.
***Nothing wrong with being a true believer in sumthin that is true.
Good, then the moderators will have no need to kick you off another thread or even get involved.
***You’ve had a change of heart and I applaud that. It is in both our intersected best interest to figure out how to generate parallel threads so that each vehement side has their say.
And we will happily continue this discussion without your input.
***There were several people who pinged me on this thread, some after this post of yours. We need to figure it out, and you need to be explicit which viewpoints are not allowed on your ‘protected’ threads.
5% residue that is inert in just 300 years.
***Got a link on that project? Sounds intriguing.
Here’s just one LENR project:
LENR-Induced Transmutation of Nuclear Waste
Edward Esko*
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.259.9261&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Abstract —
Quantum Rabbit (QR) research on the low-energy fusion and fission (low-energy nuclear reactions, or LENR) of various elements indicates
possible pathways for applying that process to reducing nuclear materials. In a New Energy Foundation (NEF)-funded test conducted at
Quantum Rabbit lab in Owls Head, Maine, QR researchers initiated a possible low-energy fission reaction in which 204Pb fissioned into 7Li
and 197Au (204Pb → 7Li + 197Au).1 This reaction may have been triggered by a low-energy fusion reaction in which 7Li fused with 32S to
form 39K (7Li + 32S → 19K). These results confirmed earlier findings showing apparent low-energy fusion and fission reactions.2 Moreover,
subsequent research with boron indicates apparent low-energy fusion reactions in which boron fuses with oxygen to form aluminum and
with sulfur to form scandium.3 At the same time, the QR group has achieved what appear to be low-energy transmutations of carbon using
carbon-arc under vacuum and in open air.4 The research group at QR believes these processes can be adapted to accelerate the natural decay
cycle of uranium-235, plutonium-239, radium-226 and the fission products cesium-137, iodine-129, technetium-99 and strontium-90 with
the long-term potential of reducing the threat posed by radioactive isotopes to human health and the environment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#Cleanup
3 Mile Island Cleanup
A clean-up crew working to remove radioactive contamination at Three Mile Island
Initially, GPU planned to repair the reactor and return it into service.[99] However, Three Mile Island Unit 2 was too badly damaged and contaminated to resume operations; the reactor was gradually deactivated and permanently closed. TMI-2 had been online for only 3 months but now had a ruined reactor vessel and a containment building that was unsafe to walk in. Cleanup started in August 1979 and officially ended in December 1993, with a total cleanup cost of about $1 billion.[18] Benjamin K. Sovacool, in his 2007 preliminary assessment of major energy accidents, estimated that the TMI accident caused a total of $2.4 billion in property damages.[100]
Efforts focused on the cleanup and decontamination of the site, especially the defueling of the damaged reactor. Starting in 1985, almost 100 short tons (91 t) of radioactive fuel were removed from the site. Planning and work was partially hampered by too optimistic views about the damage.[101]
In 1988, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced that, although it was possible to further decontaminate the Unit 2 site, the remaining radioactivity had been sufficiently contained as to pose no threat to public health and safety. The first major phase of the cleanup was completed in 1990, when workers finished shipping 150 short tons (140 t) of radioactive wreckage to Idaho for storage at the Department of Energy’s National Engineering Laboratory. However, the contaminated cooling water that leaked into the containment building had seeped into the building’s concrete, leaving the radioactive residue too impractical to remove. Accordingly, further cleanup efforts were deferred to allow for decay of the radiation levels and to take advantage of the potential economic benefits of retiring both Unit 1 and Unit 2 together.[18]
I assume a 3% inflation rate on power rate,
***I think here in California it’s been closer to about 8% per year but I don’t know where the most accepted set of data is.
Science is turning into scientism, a religion.
It is interesting the amount of investment going toward fusion by major players however.
***Same is true now for LENR but that has hiccupped in the past. Major players such as Mitsubishi.
But, a billion here and billion there by Gates and Bezos is kind of small potatoes
***Not really. That’s 1% of their net worth. Not small potatoes.
and likely also has PR advantages for them.
***They could pay down for a PR campaign for mere $millions. What these guys are doing is moving in for the next land-grab of Intellectual Property.
yes
If the volume is so small then why not fly it into the sun? Cost, that’s why. And... the volume aint so small.
Starting in 1985, almost 100 short tons (91 t) of radioactive fuel were removed from the site. Planning and work was partially hampered by too optimistic views about the damage.[101]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident#Cleanup
There is no such thing as a clean burning coal plant. Even with the most advanced scrubbers 2% of the heavy metals particularly Mercury still goes right up the stack. Most scrubers are only 90% so 10% still gets into the air and condenses with water vapor to rain back down. That is unacceptable to society and our lakes and rivers thank us. Coal is best left in the dust bin if history. To barely meet the EPA standards which modern people want zero not 2 to 10% allowed into their drinking water sources. The costs of scrubbers is in the hundreds of millions of dollars it makes coal totally not competitive with gas plants or even nuclear. This says nothing of the coming $50 to $100 per tonne carbon taxes world wide that will make coal easily the most expensive power , gas second with nuclear, wind and solar dominating the under $50 mwh price field. Solar can be had for under $23 mwh during the sunny times of day.
https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/utility/hgwhitepaperfinal.pdf
Same for NOx clean coal is a myth.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-coal-pollution/
Everything radioactive in nuclear waste can be split by neutrons in a breeder or similar reactor. The only exceptions are strontium and cesium. These have such short half-lives that they are essentially inert in 300 years.
https://www.fastcompany.com/3043099/this-nuclear-reactor-eats-nuclear-waste (intrinsically safe, my choice, but article neglects to mention the 300 year residual)
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/29/science/modern-alchemists-transmute-nuclear-waste.html (Gee, we could have started 30 years ago...)
https://www.nature.com/articles/486323b
https://newatlas.com/hitachi-reactor/33585/ (It could even be done with existing boiling water reactors)
http://transcriptvids.com/v/rv-mFSoZOkE.html (That approach doesn’t even burn the fuel, just extracts the components.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.