Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/02/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]How can used stuff have more radiation than unused? If it had, it would be usable. OK, it is concentrated into granules but if you store it deep in stable rock caves (like we plan to do in Finland) and take into account the immense mass of stone around the storage I see no way it can have increased radiation compared with hot uranium mines. All the best! Raimo K Personal photography homepage at: http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho ----- Original Message ----- From: "Douglas Sharp" <douglas.sharp@gmx.de> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 12:51 AM Subject: Re: [Leica] RE: LUG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 221 > Hello Frank, > the refined stuff has a much higher radiation output than the ores - think > of tiny granules of uranium mixed in with great chunks of rock which, at > least partially stop the radiation, and, btw, make uranium mines so hot. > There is one method of sealing nuclear waste which is effective as far as > it goes, sealing it in glass with a large proportion of lead (which > doesn't shield from radiation, it absorbs it and changes over time) this > has again the inherent problem of heat, the energy has to come out > somewhere. Before somebody suggests dropping it into volcanos, the molten > lava is much too close to the surface, getting sprayed with molten rock is > bad enough, but making it radioactive too is a bit much. > > As to the plastics, there are some fascinating developments on the way > with high quality plastics made from potato starches and waste straw from > maize crops, then there's always multitudes of natural vegetable oils > which haven't really been tested for making the polymers we need for > plastics. > The power of biological products can be seen in the recipe for casein > glue - just mix curds and chalk - one of the best and oldest glues there > is. > The energy business is going to become one of the main areas for the > development of genetically modified plant strains, the other area is the > creation of bacteria which can reduce waste plastics to their original > source materials - but that is a pandora's box I don't care to think > about - just let a bacterium like that get out of hand or mutated and > start chewing up plastics just where it shouldn't, I shudder at the > thought. > It's interesting that most of the large oil companies are working very > hard in this direction, particularly Shell and BP, they want to have the > market cornered when the time is ripe. There was a research project for > loosening up heavy oil deposits in a reservoir by dropping anaerobic > bacteria down through the borehole, but I left the business before hearing > more about it. > The last stuff I was working on was the localisation of deep seated magma > bodies for geothermal energy production in Tuscany (Larderello,where > they've been doing it since the early 1920s) my theory for variations in > their heat production was that these bodies are also subject to tidal > forces caused by the position of the moon pulling them closer to the > surface, unfortunately I never did hear what came of that either. At least > there was a significant increase in microseismicity (tiny earth tremors) > at full moon, which seems to support my theory. > To get back on track, the visit to ENEL GreenPower in Pisa was a wonderful > opportunity to wander around that beautiful city with a camera. > cheers > Douglas > > Frank Dernie wrote: > >> Douglas, >> I have always wanted to ask a specialist this question, and it looks >> like you may just be the person......... >> What is wrong with burying nuclear waste in the exhausted mines from >> which it originated? Presumably it won't be any more dangerous there >> than the raw nuclear material originally mined???? >> The biggest concern I have re oil is not its use as a fuel, that seems a >> terrible waste to me, but as the raw material for manufacturing >> materials such as plastics for which we have no reasonable alternative. >> Frank >> >> On 1 Feb, 2006, at 19:30, Douglas Sharp wrote: >> >>> The technologiy is clean enough, and close to being as safe as it can >>> be - the problem is still nuclear waste. As a production and >>> exploration geophysicist I've worked on nuclear waste storage sites, >>> working and prospective, in Germany, Belgium, Switzerland and a few >>> other places. For the long-term storage of nuclear waste there is NO >>> really safe solution, that stuff stays highly radioactive on a >>> geological time scale. >>> Salt dome caverns are no good - salt moves and migrates so you've >>> never got a constant thickness shielding your waste, the Swiss solution >>> of putting it in caverns blasted out of native impervious (supposedly) >>> rocks is better but radiactive gases (Radon for example) always manage >>> to find a way to the surface. The Belgian method of hiding it under a >>> thin layer of impervious clay isn't a long term solution either. >>> So what do we do with it? Shooting it into the sun is the only real >>> way of getting rid of it, there's been enough dropped into the sea and >>> more than enough buried already, these "fly-dumps" will take their >>> revenge on the environment one of theses days. >>> You say that present day technologies are safe, I agree - problem is, >>> even the most recent reactors just haven't been built with these new >>> technologies, Temsvar in the Czech Republic is one of the newest NPSs >>> and is just not safe, the same applies to the latest French reactors, >>> Germany's reactors have been plagued with problems and Sellafield in >>> the UK is a dirty word already. No need to mention reactors in the >>> former soviet block countries....... >>> >>> Fusion power is pie-in-the-sky (unless the billions for defence are >>> re-channeled), you might just as well try a further development of >>> Nikolaus Tesla's idea by building orbiting spaceborne solar power >>> stations transmitting power as high energy microwave frequencies back >>> to earth, though I dread to think what would happen if a plane flew >>> through one of those tight banded transmissions. >>> The only clean options are terrestrial solar energy farms, wind and >>> tidal energy and geothermal energy - these are the only future I can >>> see in power production. >>> >>> Some of the latest developments reek of science fiction but could be >>> effective - half mile high chimneys set up in desert regions, the >>> temperature differential between ground level and the top creates winds >>> of incredible velocities, all you have to do is put aturbine in the way >>> of it. Using waste energy (off peak production is always too high and >>> just gets wasted) from conventional power stations to pump water into >>> high level reservoirs >>> to run hydroelectric turbines at peak demand times, storing energy as >>> compressed air in salt domes is another option, use it to supply the >>> energy needed to get gas turbines running. >>> >>> None of these, however give us any kind of solution for automotive >>> transport - when the oil runs out we're going to back with sailing >>> ships and steam engines again, individual or personal transportation >>> will be the rich man's game. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information