[geeks] RE: Energy

[geeks at sunhelp.org]

Posting to geeks@, crossposting to rescue only to
correct a couple of inaccuracies IMHO.

> [Stuff about Nuclear Waste disposal problems]

> I aways thought we should just save all the dirt that comes 
> with the uranium when we mine it, mix our spent fuel with it
> and put the stuff right back where it came from - it wasn't
> bothering anyone before we played with it, and we're just
> artificially shortening the half-life. 
It's not that simple.  The byproducts of U235 fission are
in some (many) cases nastier than the byproducts of natural
decay of the same radionuclides--or show up in different
concentrations.  The original ore has also typically been
crushed to extract the useful component--meaning that much
of the long term stability (structural/chemical) of the original
ore is gone.  Simply mixing the radwaste back in with the
remaining components of the original ore isn't really a
one-for-one exchange for whoever receives the ore/radwaste
mixture.  

> The single biggest problem with nuclear power is that the 
> navy was pressured to commercialize it ASAP. Reactor designs
> that worked well for small sub/ship-based reactors really
> were bad designs for the land where you can "waste" a lot
> of space in the name of increased safety / lower maintenance.

Um, no.  Do you have any reputable source that confirms
any of this?  I was previously certified by the Navy and the
DOE for the operation/supervision/maintenance of Naval
nuclear power plants, and passed my engineer's exam at NR--
and there are essentially *no* land-based power-generation
plants that use the type of highly-enriched light-water cooled
zirconium moderated plants that the Navy uses on ships and
boats.  There are some similarities, but the percent of
uranium enrichment and the size/power generation capacity
is significantly different.  The only land-based reactors that
use Navy designs are the prototype/training reactors, from
everything I know--and there's no power generation from those
since they are rarely in steady state long enough to make
sense hooking them up to a distribution grid.  (My uncle,
who's deceased, worked for Combustion Engineering on design
of reactors for both the Navy and commercial interests--and
from everything I remember, those were two separate but related
sets of design principles/methods and engineering tradeoffs.)

If you know differently, please tell me the reference so I can
educate myself.

> The integral fast reactor (IFR) 
> (see http://newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99xx7.htm and 
> http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/ - probably could 
> google for more) ...

> Physics Today, either last issue or 2 issues ago...

I'll look these up--sounds like interesting reading.  I do
support the use of nuclear fission for power generation--but
I sure do with that the fusion weenies would stop dorking
around and get going already with fusion power.   =8-)

  --Rip