Why We Have No Wind or Solar Power

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

You can't eat plutonium, and you never will. And you cannot through it away -- because there is no away.

A solution is sustainable because something can eat the waste. In fact, there is no "waste" in a sustainable solution.

They write about biological nutrients, and about technical nutrients. You can't mix them. Each kind of nutrient goes through a full circle cycle again and again, and it sustains us.

Plutonium is not either kind of nutrient.

This is clearly a double standard, last I checked nothing eats steel either (nor is it a nutrient) or any elemental material either. And steel is pretty much the primary building material in the structures that renewable sources are built from except PV which uses their own mix of toxic chemicals.

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by dcb

Have you really looked into it? The fact that some breeder reactors create additonal plutonium-239 is a serious concern. Half life of 24000 years, good weapons material.

And the pure sodium cooling systems, that have to be cooled themselves by water, is not a thing to waive your hand at either.

Why is Plutonium used in weapons? The answer is because it is one heck of a fission material. That said it makes a great fuel for power plants as well. There are solutions that are on the way, and I am not talking about like figuring out fusion in the next 25 years. This is in the implementation stage (start reading on page 3)

New age nuclear | COSMOS magazine

supporting documentation
IEEE Spectrum: Q&A: Thorium Reactor Designer Ratan Kumar Sinha

Breeder reactors are very much a reality as well and present us the opportinuty to have a near endless supply of fissionable material.
Breeder reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reason we have not been recycling our fuel in the past was twofold, politics and the same reason we still burn coal, its easier than doing something that costs a little more but has a better end result.

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by Concrete

Neil,
you are right - eventually all products have to be sustainable
this a very interesting topic for another thread
but all commodities will be scarce in the sustainable future
what is left, looks like biology - carbon cycle etc.

I agree very much with this principal as well but I think Humans as a race are too dense to understand it.
We cant make anything out of wood because the treehuggers get upset.
We cant wear anything made of an animal because the vegans get upset.
We cant burn any fuel that we grow because the advocates for the poor get upset.
And we cant use any of our sustainable mineral resources because the greens get upset.
There is no solution.

Originally Posted by Concrete

I do think Mr. McDonough left one important aspect of trees out of his speach
They Grow Back

I couldnt agree more.

[Concrete]

I like the thorium reactor idea
great for supporting energy production in touchy areas of the world
hope it is nearer than farther away

Originally Posted by Duffman

I agree very much with this principal as well but I think Humans as a race are too dense to understand it.
We cant make anything out of wood because the treehuggers get upset.
We cant wear anything made of an animal because the vegans get upset.
We cant burn any fuel that we grow because the advocates for the poor get upset.
And we cant use any of our sustainable mineral resources because the greens get upset.
There is no solution.

Too true!
but let them complain, we will persevere while they say it can't be done

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Duffman

This is clearly a double standard, last I checked nothing eats steel either (nor is it a nutrient) or any elemental material either. And steel is pretty much the primary building material in the structures that renewable sources are built from except PV which uses their own mix of toxic chemicals.

Nothing much eats silicon, either. At least not refined silicon (and refining it is quite energy-intensive, BTW), though there are some microorganisms that incorporate SiO2 (quartz or sand) into their skeletal structures.

[dcb]

Originally Posted by Duffman

Why is Plutonium used in weapons? The answer is because it is one heck of a fission material.

Ok, now, stay with me here,

If we make more stuff than we use, if "This generation" signs up the next one to be the caretakers of this material, what values are needed to make that sustainable? How is it our right to make that decision?

Nobody has really addressed the byproducts issue with anything more than a hand wave, I've heard just bury it, and nuclear waste on the rocks, I think some major assumptions are being made here.

You HAVE to deal with the "what do we do with the leftovers" question effectively if you want more folks to buy in. And build the case that it is the right decision from a wide range of angles.

[MechEngVT]

Originally Posted by Duffman

I agree very much with this principal as well but I think Humans as a race are too dense to understand it.
We cant make anything out of wood because the treehuggers get upset.
We cant wear anything made of an animal because the vegans get upset.
We cant burn any fuel that we grow because the advocates for the poor get upset.
And we cant use any of our sustainable mineral resources because the greens get upset.
There is no solution.

Sure there is. You round up all the treehuggers and the vegans and the greens and chop them up and feed them to the poor.

Problem solved!

[MechEngVT]

Originally Posted by Duffman

It is quite ironic that most of these "enviromentalists" accuse big oil of lying to the public and obstructing the global warming movement, yet these people use the same tactics of misinformation and obstruction against the nuclear industry which is one of best tools to reduce our carbon footprint.

And they use the same tactics against anyone who presents any data that suggests that nature, not mankind, has caused any observed warming.

And you're right that global warming is a movement in the political/religious sense. It has long ceased being a scientific theory to almost all who subscribe to its doctrines.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by MechEngVT

And they use the same tactics against anyone who presents any data that suggests that nature, not mankind, has caused any observed warming.

No, "they" don't. I'm not saying they wouldn't if the occasion arose, but they haven't done so yet, because no one has ever presented any such data. Fables, yes. Wishful thinking, yes. But actual data? Not a scrap.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

Steel can be recycled, or it will decay back into the earth. Plutonium cannot.

The main idea of Cradle to Cradle is that there are biological nutrients, and there are technical nutrients; both of which can be truly recycled back into at least equal quality material. Obviously, biological nutrients do this on their own; while technical nutrients have to be processed.


The problems arise when these get mingled, making it hard/impossible to separate them. And worst of all are materials that cannot even fit into the technical nutrient category: PVC, heavy metals, and plutonium are examples of these.

----------

Are some of you suggesting that humans have not contributed to, or at least tipped the balance on global climate change? C'mon! All the "science" that questions this has been bought and paid for by Exxon Mobil et al.