Figuring Out How Much a Hybrid, Diesel, or Small Car Will Save Per Year

No, I got it right. U235 is the less stable isotope, U238 is more
stable and is the more common isotope. U238 contains small amounts of
U235 and since the only difference between them is the atomic weight
(number of protons & neutrons) the only way to separate them is by
using the weight of the atom. That's how centrifuge enrichment works.

You would be right if all of the potential energy of a pound of
nuclear fuel could be used, but it can't be for a lot of different
reasons. Currently we can only extract a small percentage (less than
10%) of the total before the fuel has to be re-processed to remove the
byproducts of the chain reaction. The byproducts will poison the fuel
by acting as chain reaction dampeners. This reduces the amount of
heat the pile can develop and the amount of work the reactor can
provide. Re-processing a pound of fuel is more energy intensive and
much more dangerous than make a new pound of fuel. These byproducts
are highly radioactive and their half life ranges from around 10 years
to well over 100,000 years.

I am against generating electrical power using nuke plants. Not
because of environmental issues but because it is not an economical
method of generating electricity when you consider ALL of the costs
associated with it.

As for greenhouse gases, why do you not want to reduce the greatest
greenhouse gas of all, water vapor? Water vapor has been proven to be
a very effective greenhouse gas, we prove that on cloudy nights when
the temperature stays high. On clear nights, the temperature drops a
lot. Spend the night in a desert sometime and see, 100+ during the
day and close to freezing at night.

 

Your son was had. Buy a standard $500 Washer, and they work as well
as they always have.

Get off your wallet and buy a quality toilet. I have a Jacuzzi Low
Flow with a 3" flush valve that will take your hat off if you are
standing too close. It doesn't clog unless the kids put in wads of
paper the size of a softball...

There is nothing wrong with being environmentally conscious, if you do
it right. My Civic Si is a LEV rated vehicle that has plenty of power
and speed while being reasonably ecological. My toilet doesn't waste
water and gets the job done. My washer gets the clothes clean and
costs half to run that my old one did. It is your job to be an
educated consumer and not fall prey to the marketing hype.

 

Visit the area in Canada around the battery manufacturing plant, and
you'll see an ecological cost. Serious carnage. Then, consider that
the battery materials are shipped to Canada for manufacture, then back
to Japan to be put in the cars, then the cars are shipped around the
world. Plenty of carbon costs there.

The Prius is only affordable in the US because of the credit given by
the government to own one. And it's gas mileage is no better than
that of a 90's era CRX, which also had a significant fun factor to it.

I think the hybrid idea is a good one, but it still has quite a way to
go before it is really environmentally friendly.

 

Front loading washers are gentler on clothes, use less water and
detergent and save energy. And they get clothes as clean or cleaner than
top-loading washers.

You're right, Mike's son was had.

 

Based on my experience in London last year, if something costs $50 in
the US, it will cost about £50 in London.

 

Based on my experience in London last year, if something costs $50 in
the US, it will cost about £50 in London.

 

My approximation was based on the delivered KWH from uranium without
reprocessing. With reprocessing, you can get about ten times as much.

I don't know about that but even if it is so, the net CO2 reduction is
still enormous. Simple logic tells you that they must be getting a
lot more energy out than they are putting in or no one would bother.

And it's a big problem but there is still a CO2 reduction.

Tell me about it, I am paying the bills. However, you do have to also
consider the environmental costs. If everything goes right, the nuke
will do a lot less harm than a coal-fired plant. However, one little
oops and the costs - fiscal and environmental -- skyrocket.

Water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas and man has
negligible direct effect on it. OTOH CO2 and methane are rising
dramatically due to human activities and their influence on total
warming is very significant. As the planet warms, the level of water
vapor increases. Thus man's effect on water vapor is indirect but
very real. Note that increased water vapor warms the planet which
causes a further increase in water vapor. This is one of the factors
in the runaway warming model and you do not want to go there.

 

My approximation was based on the delivered KWH from uranium without
reprocessing. With reprocessing, you can get about ten times as much.

I don't know about that but even if it is so, the net CO2 reduction is
still enormous. Simple logic tells you that they must be getting a
lot more energy out than they are putting in or no one would bother.

And it's a big problem but there is still a CO2 reduction.

Tell me about it, I am paying the bills. However, you do have to also
consider the environmental costs. If everything goes right, the nuke
will do a lot less harm than a coal-fired plant. However, one little
oops and the costs - fiscal and environmental -- skyrocket.

Water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas and man has
negligible direct effect on it. OTOH CO2 and methane are rising
dramatically due to human activities and their influence on total
warming is very significant. As the planet warms, the level of water
vapor increases. Thus man's effect on water vapor is indirect but
very real. Note that increased water vapor warms the planet which
causes a further increase in water vapor. This is one of the factors
in the runaway warming model and you do not want to go there.

 

You are referring to geologic data indicating that in past (natural)
warming cycles, warming preceded CO2 rises by about 1000 years. This
is because past warming events weren't initiated by CO2. However, once
initiated, warming causes increased CO2 levels which cause further
warming. Even though the cycle wasn't initiated by a rise in CO2,
rising CO2 drove it further than it would have gone otherwise.

This new cycle is different. It is initiated by CO2 and it is
advancing very rapidly. If we reach a tipping point (and some
scientists believe that we are getting close) the process will start
running away and no one can say how far it will go.

 

You are referring to geologic data indicating that in past (natural)
warming cycles, warming preceded CO2 rises by about 1000 years. This
is because past warming events weren't initiated by CO2. However, once
initiated, warming causes increased CO2 levels which cause further
warming. Even though the cycle wasn't initiated by a rise in CO2,
rising CO2 drove it further than it would have gone otherwise.

This new cycle is different. It is initiated by CO2 and it is
advancing very rapidly. If we reach a tipping point (and some
scientists believe that we are getting close) the process will start
running away and no one can say how far it will go.

 

The CO2 (and SO2, NOx - you forgot these) from coal power far, far exceeds
the total "carbon footprint" of a modern nuclear plant *including* the
construction of the plant and production of the fuel.

http://www.uow.edu.au/eng/phys/nukeweb/reactors_nuc_v_coal.html

And don't forget - coal extraction can be devastating to the environment:
90 million gallons of waste slurry produced every year while preparing coal
to be burned, 1,200+ miles of streams that have been buried or polluted -
just in in the Appalachia region because of mountaintop removal mining, 260
million gallons of water used for coal mining in the U.S. every day, 12,000
miners died from black lung disease between 1992 and 2002...

a

 

The CO2 (and SO2, NOx - you forgot these) from coal power far, far exceeds
the total "carbon footprint" of a modern nuclear plant *including* the
construction of the plant and production of the fuel.

http://www.uow.edu.au/eng/phys/nukeweb/reactors_nuc_v_coal.html

And don't forget - coal extraction can be devastating to the environment:
90 million gallons of waste slurry produced every year while preparing coal
to be burned, 1,200+ miles of streams that have been buried or polluted -
just in in the Appalachia region because of mountaintop removal mining, 260
million gallons of water used for coal mining in the U.S. every day, 12,000
miners died from black lung disease between 1992 and 2002...

a

 

Stop it! Please don't confuse the members of the group with facts. It
only clarifies issues.

Jeff

 

Stop it! Please don't confuse the members of the group with facts. It
only clarifies issues.

Jeff

 

What facts? You once again demonstrate you penchant to comment on every
subject, even though you apparently know little or nothing of the subject on
which you choose to comment.



Obviously you know noting about the Anthracite and Bituminous coal fields in
Pennsylvania. They are not on the mountain tops. The coal is all in "U"
shape veins between the mountains. For the past fifty years, ALL coal wash
water has been collected, sediments removed and the water REUSED. Any water
release is treated for acids before being discharged. After the coal is
removed the area is restored to grade. Even old areas, mined before
federal and state reclamation laws were passed, are being reclaimed and put
to use LOL

 

What facts? You once again demonstrate you penchant to comment on every
subject, even though you apparently know little or nothing of the subject on
which you choose to comment.



Obviously you know noting about the Anthracite and Bituminous coal fields in
Pennsylvania. They are not on the mountain tops. The coal is all in "U"
shape veins between the mountains. For the past fifty years, ALL coal wash
water has been collected, sediments removed and the water REUSED. Any water
release is treated for acids before being discharged. After the coal is
removed the area is restored to grade. Even old areas, mined before
federal and state reclamation laws were passed, are being reclaimed and put
to use LOL

 

So doing that in one area makes it all ok?

a

 

So doing that in one area makes it all ok?

a

 

I don't know to whom you were responding. The logical person would be
me, because I made the last comment.

However, I didn't make any comments about particular types of mining,
because I knew that mountain top removal mining is destroying the
environment in West Virgina, where the Applalachian Mountains are (they
are not just in PA). I am also well aware of the how coal is mined in
the mountains. My father and grandfather used to deliver coal in a Model
A truck; further, my great grandfather was a fire boss in the mines.

However, the poster to whom I was responding was correct about
mountaintop mining, more accurately called "mountaintop-removal mining,"
because the mountain top is literally blasted away. The rocks are left
in the valleys, where the rivers are polluted by the rocks and the
minerals in the rocks.

As luck would have it, I was at the American Museum of Natural History
this week, where they had a short movie about Mountain Top Mining. You
may educate yourself by going to that great museum or by reading
articles that you can find with a google search like these:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6462-2004Aug16.html

http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mountaintop_removal/007/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_mining

You may want to keep your hands off the keyboard and remember the old
adage: "It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than
to open it and leave no doubt."

In this case, you left no doubt.

Jeff

 

I don't know to whom you were responding. The logical person would be
me, because I made the last comment.

However, I didn't make any comments about particular types of mining,
because I knew that mountain top removal mining is destroying the
environment in West Virgina, where the Applalachian Mountains are (they
are not just in PA). I am also well aware of the how coal is mined in
the mountains. My father and grandfather used to deliver coal in a Model
A truck; further, my great grandfather was a fire boss in the mines.

However, the poster to whom I was responding was correct about
mountaintop mining, more accurately called "mountaintop-removal mining,"
because the mountain top is literally blasted away. The rocks are left
in the valleys, where the rivers are polluted by the rocks and the
minerals in the rocks.

As luck would have it, I was at the American Museum of Natural History
this week, where they had a short movie about Mountain Top Mining. You
may educate yourself by going to that great museum or by reading
articles that you can find with a google search like these:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6462-2004Aug16.html

http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mountaintop_removal/007/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_mining

You may want to keep your hands off the keyboard and remember the old
adage: "It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than
to open it and leave no doubt."

In this case, you left no doubt.

Jeff