Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > General Efficiency Discussion
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-13-2008, 11:22 PM   #91 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Posts: 531
Thanks: 11
Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard View Post
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.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 10-13-2008, 11:30 PM   #92 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Posts: 531
Thanks: 11
Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcb View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2008, 11:46 PM   #93 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Posts: 531
Thanks: 11
Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concrete View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Concrete View Post
I do think Mr. McDonough left one important aspect of trees out of his speach
They Grow Back
I couldnt agree more.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2008, 01:04 AM   #94 (permalink)
Sequential
 
Concrete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kansas
Posts: 177

The Truck - '00 Chevy S10 Extended Cab
90 day: 22.47 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 22 Times in 7 Posts
I like the thorium reactor idea
great for supporting energy production in touchy areas of the world
hope it is nearer than farther away


Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffman View Post
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
__________________
Concrete
Start where you are - Use what you have - Do what you can.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2008, 01:57 AM   #95 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,209
Thanks: 225
Thanked 811 Times in 594 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffman View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2008, 04:32 AM   #96 (permalink)
dcb
needs more cowbell
 
dcb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: ˇ
Posts: 5,038

pimp mobile - '81 suzuki gs 250 t
90 day: 96.29 mpg (US)

schnitzel - '01 Volkswagen Golf TDI
90 day: 53.56 mpg (US)
Thanks: 158
Thanked 269 Times in 212 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffman View Post
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.
__________________
WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2008, 11:26 AM   #97 (permalink)
Mechanical Engineer
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 190

The Truck - '02 Dodge Ram 1500 SLT Sport
90 day: 13.32 mpg (US)

The Van 2 - '06 Honda Odyssey EX
90 day: 20.56 mpg (US)

GoKart - '14 Hyundai Elantra GT base 6MT
90 day: 30.91 mpg (US)

Godzilla - '21 Ford F350 XL
90 day: 12.85 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 6 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffman View Post
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!
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2008, 11:29 AM   #98 (permalink)
Mechanical Engineer
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 190

The Truck - '02 Dodge Ram 1500 SLT Sport
90 day: 13.32 mpg (US)

The Van 2 - '06 Honda Odyssey EX
90 day: 20.56 mpg (US)

GoKart - '14 Hyundai Elantra GT base 6MT
90 day: 30.91 mpg (US)

Godzilla - '21 Ford F350 XL
90 day: 12.85 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 6 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffman View Post
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.
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2008, 12:03 PM   #99 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,209
Thanks: 225
Thanked 811 Times in 594 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MechEngVT View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2008, 12:31 PM   #100 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
NeilBlanchard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth
Posts: 7,905

Mica Blue - '05 Scion xA RS 2.0
Team Toyota
90 day: 42.48 mpg (US)

Forest - '15 Nissan Leaf S
Team Nissan
90 day: 156.46 mpg (US)

Number 7 - '15 VW e-Golf SEL
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 155.81 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,473
Thanked 2,946 Times in 1,841 Posts
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.

__________________
Sincerely, Neil

http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Converting power steering to electric power steering Daox EcoModding Central 54 01-17-2017 06:16 PM
Without Clean Electricity, Plug-In Vehicles Arenít So Hot SVOboy General Efficiency Discussion 37 10-17-2008 02:35 AM
Wind Power trikkonceptz Fossil Fuel Free 13 10-09-2008 01:32 AM
Wind power testing idea extragoode Saving@Home 5 08-21-2008 12:09 PM
Bullfrog Power wind farm owner dumps his Insight for a Prius MetroMPG General Efficiency Discussion 0 12-16-2007 11:50 PM



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com