Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/02/02

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] RE: LUG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 221
From: bruce at ralgo.nl (bruce)
Date: Thu Feb 2 10:17:45 2006
References: <8E304C968A1F6444B2F8B33150CE72C705A3DB73@NAEAWNYDEX17VA.nadsusea.nads.navy.mil> <43E10C66.6030409@gmx.de><B8DCD209-EF21-4A8C-B808-1AB3DB66EB9F@btinternet.com> <43E13B71.9080909@gmx.de> <00a201c62815$fc938b70$91cb9253@Korhonen>

I have just returned from a voyage into northern  
Europe ............... beauty of image, language, people ...... and  
an intense desire to return to the light and waters of the country of  
**,000 lakes, with maybe  a tack-on to the Hermitage and Estonia.

Thank you for opening your site to me, Raimo.

B.

On 2-feb-2006, at 17:17, Raimo K wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


In reply to: Message from william.mattheis at navy.mil (Mattheis, William G CIV) ([Leica] RE: LUG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 221)
Message from douglas.sharp at gmx.de (Douglas Sharp) ([Leica] RE: LUG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 221)
Message from Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie) ([Leica] RE: LUG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 221)
Message from douglas.sharp at gmx.de (Douglas Sharp) ([Leica] RE: LUG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 221)
Message from raimo.m.korhonen at uusikaupunki.fi (Raimo K) ([Leica] RE: LUG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 221)