Make yellow Stone a geothermal plant?

Here is a pretty good overview of Yellowstone vs. Geothermal.

serc.carleton.edu...

The link is actually a teaching aid but it contains many resources.

Originally posted by Xeven
We have the technology's to safely operate nuclear plants. I wish we would build 3000 not 300.

At one time, I would have argued strenuously against this -- but I am now enlightened, and agree with you 100%.

If we were to build 1000 nuclear power plants, we would have so much electrical energy available that we could run all the electric cars in America FOR FREE! Yeah -- we wouldn't have to ever pay for energy again. It would be like picking up a toothpick at a restaurant -- just something totally gratis.

I am not arguing against geothermal or other techniques (obviously) -- we want a diversified energy supply. The more diversified, the stronger and more enduring our position will be.

#

I am convinced that the fear of nuclear power is not rational. It is not as dangerous (by a long shot) as people commonly think. It is actually very safe. Nuclear power is a panacea to a lot of our problems.

Anyone who wants to politely argue with me about my assertions regarding nuclear power -- I have a thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The conclusion to the above thread points to some strange (and I think valid) work done by the so-called NWO. You may think I'm crazy -- but please check it out. There has been a conspiracy against nuclear power, here in the USA, for the last 50 years. I think the above thread backs that up.

reply to post by TruthWithin


It has erupted before.....sure granted a LONG time ago, but theres always the risk of it erupting again.

Originally posted by Buck Division
If we were to build 1000 nuclear power plants, we would have so much electrical energy available that we could run all the electric cars in America FOR FREE! Yeah -- we wouldn't have to ever pay for energy again. It would be like picking up a toothpick at a restaurant -- just something totally gratis.

You must of course consider the cost of building and maintaining those 1000 nuclear plants (which at a couple billion a pop would be immense) and well as the further costs of waste containment. So "free" may be a bit of a stretch.

Originally posted by SystemiK
You must of course consider the cost of building and maintaining those 1000 nuclear plants (which at a couple billion a pop would be immense) and well as the further costs of waste containment. So "free" may be a bit of a stretch.

Okay -- I over stated for effect. It wouldn't be free. But I DO THINK it could be paid for as a public utility as opposed to paying at the pump.

I disagree that a nuclear power plant takes a billion dollars to make. This ignores "economy of scale". I assume we would have a standard design, some sort of standard infrastructure, etc. The Perry Ohio nuclear plant cost $6 billion dollars -- often held up as the model for what a plant typically costs. But I have heard that most of the cost was in "redesign" and to replicate this plant would cost around $200 million. Using this idea, we could build 1000 plants for around $200 billion dollars. That is about the same cost as prosecuting the war in Iraq for 20 months.

I also disagree that the cost of waste containment would be significant. The French have this problem licked. They built some warehouses. It is a pretty good alternative to burying waste, and is estimated to be an effective solution for 300 years. (We are talking about 7 generations of humanity.)

#

This is a bit off topic. Going back on topic -- let's just build some geothermal plants, use hydroelectric power, solar, wind. I think nuclear power would be a fast solution, but I doubt too many people agree -- so arguing on behalf of that solution is a waste of everyone's time. We could start building a few dozen geothermal plants now, and have them running next year. That would be helpful to the economy. Agreed? At the very least, we would be doing something productive, on behalf of ourselves and future generations.



[edit on 6-5-2008 by Buck Division]

Originally posted by SystemiK



You must of course consider the cost of building and maintaining those 1000 nuclear plants (which at a couple billion a pop would be immense) and well as the further costs of waste containment. So "free" may be a bit of a stretch.

Quite right. And it would be a mamoth cost. It would probably dwarf the WPA. Even in inflation adjusted dollars.



And BTW you were right to be skeptical of my earlier "litterally" comment. I think I had some figures from back inthe 70's mistaken with modern. The latest estimates I have seen is that between 2-5=5% of America's Landmass would have to be converted to solar cells to meet current consumption. But I need to look into that as I suspect its optimistic. I suspect they are using an "average" energy generaated per solar cell modality, rather than actually looking at energy gains in specific areas. Either way, I fundged thenumbers.


Also, excellent link. im just starting to read it, but good post!

[edit on 5/6/2008 by Shazam The Unbowed]

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed
You must of course consider the cost of building and maintaining those 1000 nuclear plants (which at a couple billion a pop would be immense) and well as the further costs of waste containment. Quite right. And it would be a mamoth cost. It would probably dwarf the WPA. Even in inflation adjusted dollars.

I am not sure that is correct, although what you say is a popular notion. I just can't believe it is true. Here is some evidence from the DOE that supports my doubts:

Vendors have recently advertised construction costs for building new plants that would ultimately cost less per MWe than new coal plants, especially coal plants with full practical emission controls in place. Advertised nuclear power costs per kWh delivered would also compete with natural gas based power plants. These cost assertions have not been tested in the actual U.S. power market and have received only limited testing internationally

www.eia.doe.gov...

The above article causes me to wonder. It doesn't assert that nuclear power is definitely cheaper. (I wouldn't believe that outright anyway.) But the indication seems hopeful.

Regardless, it appears to me that it is all a matter of economy of scale.

en.wikipedia.org...

It should work to drive energy costs down, regardless of whether we are talking about geothermal or nuclear or solar. In this case -- thinking BIG should pay us back. A major investment (and I mean WPA sized investment, as you suggest) if handled wisely, would fix things for a long time, and have major payback

[edit on 6-5-2008 by Buck Division]

Originally posted by QBSneak000
reply to post by TruthWithin

 

It has erupted before.....sure granted a LONG time ago, but theres always the risk of it erupting again.

If Yellowstone blew its top, energy loss from any geothermal plant will be the least of everyone's concerns.

Paradoxically, a huge chunk of the world's population would probably die and that would solve much of the existing energy demands. Yes it is a cruel thing to think about.

Originally posted by SystemiK

Originally posted by Buck Division
If we were to build 1000 nuclear power plants, we would have so much electrical energy available that we could run all the electric cars in America FOR FREE! Yeah -- we wouldn't have to ever pay for energy again. It would be like picking up a toothpick at a restaurant -- just something totally gratis.

You must of course consider the cost of building and maintaining those 1000 nuclear plants (which at a couple billion a pop would be immense) and well as the further costs of waste containment. So "free" may be a bit of a stretch.

The costs of operating nuclear plants in general can't be very high. Anyone could do it. Hell, if Homer Simpson can do it................................

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed
reply to post by Cyberbian

 

Well I agree we need to build nuclear plants. We should have been doing it for the last thirty years. If we had, OPEC wouldnt have the power it does now.

Yay! Nuclear power! Only problem with that is the waste. Would you mind if we dumped it near where you live?

Building enough nuclear power stations to make a meaningful dent would cost trillions of dollars, create tens of thousands of tons of lethal high-level radioactive waste, contribute to further proliferation of nuclear weapons materials, and result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade. How wonderful. You can't solve a problem by creating a bigger problem.

Maybe OPEC would't have so much power if we tried electing people who don't kiss OPEC leaders on the lips, for a change.

Originally posted by Xeven
We have the technology's to safely operate nuclear plants. I wish we would build 3000 not 300. I would love to see Nuke, wind geothermal and any other power generating systems put on line to get us off oil. I wonder how far and how many solar, nuclear, wind etc... plants we could have built with the trillion spent in Iraq war.

But cars don't run on nuclear fuel nor on wind, geothermal or other source of fuel. Maybe on hydrogen tanks on the cars but that is so many years in the future. When someone talks about nuclear plants they forget to ask where will we put the used fuel rods. We would have to bury it somewhere and most will say not in my back yard.

Originally posted by METACOMET
Yay! Nuclear power! Only problem with that is the waste. Would you mind if we dumped it near where you live? Building enough nuclear power stations to make a meaningful dent would cost trillions of dollars, create tens of thousands of tons of lethal high-level radioactive waste, contribute to further proliferation of nuclear weapons materials, and result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade. How wonderful. You can't solve a problem by creating a bigger problem.

I can see you are very passionate about this Comet. That is good. It is necessary for people to be wary of nuclear power, handguns, swimming pools, ski lifts, motorcycles. All of these things are pretty dangerous and warrant caution.

I already addressed some of this earlier, and I don't want to go off topic, and especially don't want to argue with you. I have one question:

Would you accept a massive complex of geothermal power plants in Yellowstone? Keep in mind that there would inevitably be some serious environmental impact. But also realize it is a non-polluting, safe type of energy.

Just wondering. I want to see if we can at least agree upon that.

Originally posted by Brothers
But cars don't run on nuclear fuel nor on wind, geothermal or other source of fuel. Maybe on hydrogen tanks on the cars but that is so many years in the future. When someone talks about nuclear plants they forget to ask where will we put the used fuel rods. We would have to bury it somewhere and most will say not in my back yard.

#1. Cars work well with electricity. Electric motors are extremely powerful and efficient. Electric cars have been around since the very first automobiles ever created. There is an interesting contemporary ATS thread on this here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

#2. We can store the fuel rods in warehouses like the French are doing. It is cheap and safe. This does place a burden on future generations to maintain, and that is an ethical question. I would say we need to be prepared to contain nuclear waste for at least seven generations of humanity, or around 250 years.

#

Back to geothermal: I can't figure out why on earth we aren't exploiting this. The only thing I can think of is that certain people who are in control won't make as much profit -- even though it is VIRTUALLY FREE energy.

Originally posted by METACOMET



Yay! Nuclear power! Only problem with that is the waste. Would you mind if we dumped it near where you live?

Yay! Sarcasim without the benefit of knowledge.
One word olves this problem, "reprocessing". Now I know I know, that sounds like a scary word right? Well ehres a synonom you might be more comfortable with "recycling"
Still sound scary?
You see the "waste" that comes out of our current nuclear reactors isnt waste, unless we waste it. Through the simple expediency of reporcessing, we can
1) reduce the gross amount of nuclear waste is reduced by up to 97%
2) that which is left over contains almost 90% less "high level waste" and inf act is compeltly inert wihtin 300 years instead of several tens of thousand.
3) We could run the united states at current energy usage on the spent fuel rods we are already storing for over 130 years without adding a single micron of new uranium to the process.

Building enough nuclear power stations to make a meaningful dent would cost trillions of dollars, create tens of thousands of tons of lethal high-level radioactive waste, contribute to further proliferation of nuclear weapons materials, and result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade. How wonderful. You can't solve a problem by creating a bigger problem.

As would building millions of hydrogen gas stations, millions of windmills, millions of etc. No matter what solution we choice, its gonna cost to build. It will not produce tens of thousands of tons of waste, as I mentioned we could power the entire country for 130 years on the waste we are currently storing. WOuld you rather keep storing it and hope it doesnt poison the planet in 100, or 1000, or 10,000 years? Or does it make more sense to use it up and reduce it by 97%? A chernobyl style disaster every decade? France has had multiple nuclear power plants for every one we have sicne before chernobyl. There has yet to be a single meltdown. Thats 0 in several decades. You cant solve your problems by pretending they dont exist either.

Maybe OPEC would't have so much power if we tried electing people who don't kiss OPEC leaders on the lips, for a change.

Opec has power, because they control one of the msot valuabvel resources in the world. Large scale Nuclear power would lesssen the value of said asset.

Passion is good, reason is better.

[edit on 5/6/2008 by Shazam The Unbowed]

reply to post by Buck Division


First, you cannot equate the dangers of a nuclear accident with handguns, swimming pools, ski lifts, motorcycles. Straw man tactics won't change my mind or many others on this.

Second, sure. If we could build non-polluting, safe type of energy plants on or near the Yellowstone caldera, I'd certainly be for it. I apologize for not addressing that in my last post.

It would take a lot to convince me it was safe, though. Do you know that entire lakes relocate themselves miles away at Yellowstone because the caldera shifts the ground so intensely there?

No doubt there is a lot of free power in Yellowstone. Can we do it safely and how much power could it generate it is the question. Should I also mention that Yellowstone is a U.N owned World Heritage Site? Us Americans would need to ask permission to use it.

Originally posted by METACOMET
Should I also mention that Yellowstone is a U.N owned World Heritage Site? Us Americans would need to ask permission to use it.

Your kidding right?
You really think that "UN heritage site" label would bean jack if we wanted to develop yellowstone? I mean if we dont pay attention to what the UN says not to do in other countries, why would we listen to them tell us what to do in ours?

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl:

The list goes on. Way to many just in the US to mention.

US Nuclear Accidents

reply to post by Shazam The Unbowed


Could you please explain how we might "recycle" nuclear waste to reduce it by 97%? Do you mean by putting it into bullets, shells, and bombs?

If we can reduce nuclear waste by almost 100%, why don't we. Do tell.

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed
Your kidding right?
You really think that "UN heritage site" label would bean jack if we wanted to develop yellowstone?

Yes, I do.

[edit on 6-5-2008 by METACOMET]

I'm all for building geothermal plants as long as they aren't on national park land. If we can tap the Yellowstone area's activity from private or non-park government land, that's a great idea. Parts of northern Europe have had good experiences with it, and it's not going to go away without taking tens or hundreds of millions of people with it.

Our activities certainly aren't going to make an eruption occur that wouldn't already. If anything, stealing heat out of it is probably a good idea.

Originally posted by METACOMET

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed
reply to post by Cyberbian

 

Well I agree we need to build nuclear plants. We should have been doing it for the last thirty years. If we had, OPEC wouldn't have the power it does now.

Yay! Nuclear power! Only problem with that is the waste. Would you mind if we dumped it near where you live?

Building enough nuclear power stations to make a meaningful dent would cost trillions of dollars, create tens of thousands of tons of lethal high-level radioactive waste, contribute to further proliferation of nuclear weapons materials, and result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade. How wonderful. You can't solve a problem by creating a bigger problem.

Maybe OPEC would't have so much power if we tried electing people who don't kiss OPEC leaders on the lips, for a change.

I wouldn't mind - It's a desert out here, and we don't use the groundwater anyway. we get practically all our water via aqueduct. So even if there is a flagrant breach of containment, it's not going to do much. As long as it's properly sealed in steel and concrete drums, secured, and fenced off, I don't give a damn. We're probably too close to a fault line to make it a good place for it though.

Really, nuclear power would be much cheaper without all the litigation, and if it were standardized. France and Germany provide a good example. There are all kinds of ways to safely and reliably use nuclear power. I guess the only real benefit of not using it is that it conserves easy to get fissionables for future generations, when we've run out of oil.

A cave drilled into a mountain in the Midwest would be a great place for nuclear waste. Even if in a thousand years, it contaminates all the groundwater in a few dozen or a hundred miles around, nobody's going to care, because it's crappy land that nobody wants anyway. They may as well just set up a Chernobyl style exclusionary zone and dump their own high level radioactive waste there too. It isn't a big problem.

Sure nuclear waste lasts a long time, and if it's put in aerosol form into the atmosphere, it's very dangerous, but sitting around in containers, it's not particularly hazardous stuff. Shove it in barrels, put it somewhere geologically stable, with little moisture, and check on it every few years to make sure the containers are holding up. It doesn't harm people by simply existing, they have to be exposed.

Do you really believe that it would lead to a Chernobyl scale accident every decade? Are you that dumb? Nuclear reactors have been running for about half a century, with ever more in France and Germany. To date, there has been one Chernobyl scale accident, in, guess what, Chernobyl. The worst we've ever had was, what, three mile island? causing no direct deaths, and an unknowable but statistically insignificant increase in the incidence of cancer in the area? Chernobyl was the product of several factors, mostly poor design, maintenance, and operation. Even if such an accident were to occur here, our reactors are housed in thick concrete domes, so it wouldn't do much outside of the facility itself.

And proliferation of nuclear materials doesn't matter when it's all the property of the USA. we've already got plenty of nukes. There's no reason to make more, and it wouldn't make a difference if we did.

Originally posted by METACOMET


Could you please explain how we might "recycle" nuclear waste to reduce it by 97%? Do you mean by putting it into bullets, shells, and bombs?

How? Glad you asked.

In the last decade interest has grown in separating ('partitioning') individual radionuclides or groups of them both to reduce long-term radioactivity in residual wastes and to be able to transmute separated long-lived radionuclides into shorter-lived ones, mostly by fission. Starting in 2005 this interest in more fully closing the fuel cycle has grown and became more public, driven by concerns about long-term resource utilisation and proliferation resistance.

Reprocessing used fuel* to recover uranium (U, as RepU) and plutonium (Pu) avoids the wastage of a valuable resource. Most of it - about 96% - is uranium at less than 1% U-235 (often 0.4 - 0.8%), and up to 1% is plutonium. Both can be recycled as fresh fuel, saving some 30% of the natural uranium otherwise required. The materials potentially available for recycling (but locked up in stored used fuel) could conceivably run the US reactor fleet of about 100 GWe for almost 30 years with no new uranium input.

* Used fuel from light water reactors (at normal US burn-up) contains approximately:
95.6% uranium (U-232 0.1-0.3%, U-234 0.1-0.3%, U-235 0.5-1.0%, U-236 ).4-0.7%, balance: U-238)
2.9% stable fission products
0.9% plutonium
0.3% cesium & strontium (fission products)
0.1% iodine and technetium (fission products)
0.1% other long-lived fission products
0.1% minor actinides (americium, curium, neptunium)

Reprocessing also avoids leaving the plutonium in the used fuel, where in a century or two the built-in radiological protection will have diminished, allowing it to be recovered for illicit use (though it is unsuitable for weapons due to the non-fissile isotopes present).

Feel free to go here for more info.

Originally posted by METACOMET
If we can reduce nuclear waste by almost 100%, why don't we. Do tell.

What else?
Jimmy Carter

On April 7, 1977, President Jimmy Carter announced that the United States would defer indefinitely the reprocessing of spent nuclear reactor fuel. He stated that after extensive examination of the issues, he had reached the conclusion that this action was necessary to reduce the serious threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, and that by setting this example, the U. S. would encourage other nations to follow its lead.

They didn't. No "alternative" fuels were found and forty years later we are even more dependant on OPEC than we wee when Jimmy Jim was in office. And guess what the big idea the politicans have is? "alternative fuels", its amazing how often history repeats itself, if you know what to look for you can even spot it before it gets here.