A Cleaner Way to Use Coal

"and then, stored in the ground"

If the CO2 is going to be stored in the ground, then, it's still here. It isn't neutralized. Why is money spent on research that isn't even trying to get rid of the pollution? They're just burying it. Kinda like the spent nuclear rods that are to be stored in a mountain for 50000 years. However, the spent rods can be reused if the people can stand a higher price for their electrical power. I believe reusing the spent rods will come to past.

Have some fun today,

PAPADOC

RMFR

Why seek for reason when there is none.

Who is going to guard the rods for 50,000 years? My faith in humanity doesn't go more than a few years.

Of course, after 50000 years they won't be a hazard anyway. I believe within the next 25 years, we'll start using them to produce electrical power. Although using spent rods instead of new rods is more expensive, it's still less expensive than using fossel fuel. We've had a discussion on this before.

Have some fun today,

PAPADOC

RMFR

I dispute your thought that any known nuclear plant with any fuel is less expensive than a gas turbine. It might be close in other countries where they have not yet developed their natural gas resources, but that will be changing in the time it takes to build a new nuclear plant. I have a gread reference to back me up, it is from a nuclear plant economist: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nuclear-economics-expert-comments-on-closure-of-crystal-river-nuclear-power-plant-by-duke-energy-189900281.html

All the best,

Ron

You know the economics of using reprocessed fuel isn't the big impediment. Rules Carter put in place are the big impediment.

Could you please give me a reference on Carter's rule. What was his motive? He was a nuclear engineer in the navy.

Yup. There is even a sub named after him.

Carter's executive orders in 1977 and his veto of S. 1811, the ERDA Authorization Act of 1978, put an end to reprocessing in the US, including shutting down reprocessing reactors and ceasing production on plants under construction.

.

The agreements and role assumed by the US through the Nuclear Non-Proliferation act in 1978 as well as the 1980 executive order for cooperation with EURATOM pretty much sealed the deal.

.

President after Carter have not been effective at repealing the ban (I am only aware of Reagan making attempts to reverse the action.) and some have acted in support of the ban.

That explains a lot. It is a perfect example of how the United Natiions is a good debating club, but should not be allowed to rule anyone. They can make all the propositions they want, but we should not allow ourselves to be bound by them if circumstances change. Just one more frustration, and stupid policy we are living with. Hope we can change this somehow, but I would be happy with just using Yucca Mountain and concentrating all the nuclear material in one secure site. Is any other nation recycling these rods?

Japan was. I think I remember something about China an possibly India having plans for such, though that was all before Fukashima.

Underground coal gasification sounds better to me, but not for nations which have natural gas available. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_coal_gasification

Getting stuff out of the deep is a multiple problem:

1. The environmental impact of winning is huge (spills, chemicals used, the unusable part of what comes up)

2. Using it brings material in the atmosphere besides the natural processes: historical data shows that only the natural processes on itself can disrupt the whole system for decades, now we add disrupting factors at huge speed.

3. The land becomes unstable: just google a bit on what is going on in the north of the Netherlands (Groningen), and that is just the tip (and regional start) of the effect as it is part of the civilized world.

If Carter was a nuclear engineer in the Navy he knew the real issue of the nuclear problematics, he should be respected for daring to cross the will of the decision makers who only look to the economic calculations and costs they want to take care of.

For sure there is action to reprocess the used nuclear rods: France and Belgium have processing units that split the usable fraction from the unusable and hugely dangerous fractions. But it takes years before they can start processing them. (one of the biggest issues in Fukushima were the used rods as they contain the most material and if not cooled anymore could start working their way down)

Denmark has the most experience on wind energy (solar is not really a high flyer there) and their conclusion after decades is that it is feasible to go for 100% renewables. You just have to want to do it. that is where the whole problem resides: the decision makers don't want it and forget democracy at this level: this part of economy is a dictatorial monarchy of some famillies taking all decisions.

The reusing of the spent reds is more for safety than economics. Although the nuclear plant designers where short sighted in their method of disposal of the spent rods, the rods are here and will be dangerous for at least 25000 years. Now that we have a way to lower the risk, let's do it.

PAPADOC

RMFR

All projects should be analysed from the time the project materials come from the earth to when they go back to the earth-PAPADOC, at time = 0, i.e., right now.

You are not considering the cost of energy. Germans pay triple what Americans do. Most of Europe has been relying on coal, and is importing it from us. The UK, Germany, Poland, Ukraine, and others are all rushing to frack. This is not reported very much as it does not fit the left wing agenda.

"This is not reported very much as it does not fit the left wing agenda."

Such a funny US phrase, straight out of the McCarthy era.

We know that we are using coal and a lot, most of it comes from Australia and South Africa.

There are even new coal burning plants in construction, it is the power game of economics dictation to do the cheapest, as I said: some have all to say and simply don't allow democracy to step in.

Such a contradictionary to the idea that we are ruled by program economics with the green party dictating what to do.

But we have the right to protest and to change our personal course: Europe forced competition at various levels. Some companies and organisations had to be split due to the fact that they ended up in a form of monopoly that could prevent others to step in. this created a possibility to step away from the power generation company that just makes cheap electricity and sells it expensive to companies who invest in alternatives. This possibility has forced some traditional organisations to accept market rules (politics failed somehow directly but could awaken the masses not to accept it anymore)

And Yes, we pay the multiple of what Americans do (VAT is 21% in Be, imagine), we have litterally run out of natural resources (most of us) and still the masses didn't fall in poverty when the banks decided to take profit out of a bad situation.

I notice you do not mention fracking, which is the logical and most important next move.

Indeed, fracking is the next move. Even under our densly populated area they are planning to invest in this technique. (Shale layers)

But what is going on 200km to the north (Groningen) will slow down seriously the momentum. Fracking is even more invasive and destructive for the supporting bedrock than natural gas extraction.

Again a point to work out: if industry decides to take this route, politics need to react and if necessary help the alternative route to develop.