Neutreno's actually. extremely weakly interacting particles of unknown mass or size, that barely react or interact with anything. . one of the big projects going on in europe right now is the Neutreno factory
-which aims to fire a stream from the uk to china, direct.
Muon1 -
1) generally not mounted by amateurs. 2) you have a fixed quantity of fuel, which is a liquid with flamable vapours. drain the liquid, move it away, no problem. a series of batteries is both producing its own combustion fuel as it goes along, PLUS lithium burns itself.
Puncturing a petrol tank does not automatically lead to fire. puncturing a lithium based battery can. I don't have bond energy's to hand, so i'm not sure if it'd be preferable to have it hydrogenate, or combust. maybe both happens - i've yet to see it happen under controlled conditions.
>"jim beam" wrote Brian wrote snip
Good lord. High level radioactive waste still results from reprocessing spent nuclear fuel from power plants.
High level radioactive waste that is not spent fuel and so cannot be reprocessed is still an outcome of nuclear power plant operations.
Lower level waste simply cannot be reprocessed and is of course still a hazard.
I doubt it's only the U.S. who does not reprocess. Regardless, the reason the U.S. does not reprocess (by federal law) is, for one, because of concerns about plutonium proliferation: If this product of reprocessing gets in the wrong hands, the production of nuclear weapons is facilitated.
Reprocessing is also expensive. Mining/enrichment of uranium remains far cheaper than reprocessing.
You can't beef about how the high purchase cost of hybrid cars makes them unsuitable and then disregard how the high cost of reprocessing makes it unsuitable, all in the same thread. Or you can, but you'll be logically inconsistent.
The fear is rationally based on misinformation like that you wrote above.
The only one freaking here is you: You felt you had to dump an emotional truckload of incorrect information on someone who whose concerts are perfectly valid .
I do not oppose per se further construction and operation of commercial nuclear power plants. I do resent the irrational religious fervor of many of its advocates, resulting in the transmission of highly inaccurate information which hinders, rather than helps, the reduction of U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
Brian Stell wrote in news:49AMe.2135$Z% snipped-for-privacy@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com:
Not relevant;one selects the storage site based on sound engineering and environmental principles.
Yucca Mountain,where it's not going to affect anyone,and it's secure.
Wouldn't it be better to clean up the chemical plant?
"Leonard Caillouet" wrote in news:tUDMe.22620$Ji.10857@lakeread02:
If you noticed,the poster asked simplistic questions to frame the matter so that it SEEMS common-sense to be anti-nuclear. While avoiding common sense completely. How ironic.
flobert wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
Nonsense;gas,hydrogen,and electric vehicles all have specific hazards,and one is not necessarily worse than the others. And emergency workers are already practicing tactics to handle hybrids,and toxic chemical spills from other sources.
And how often do you thiink these cells are going to be -punctured-?
Hello, You may be too young to remember the news stories related to the gas tanks of Pintos exploding. I believe they were made by Ford. When other vehicles crashed into the back of Pintos--the gas tanks would explode. Many people were killed. You should do a google search for Pinto and you may be able to find a some reports about this subject. They quit making Pintos due to the explosions. Jason
In the county where I live, there is a nuclear power plant that stores nuclear waste above ground in pools of water. I visited the plant several years ago. I saw what looked like 4 huge swimming pools. Our guide told us the nuclear waste was stored in the bottom of each of those pools of water. They would prefer to store it in other areas but environmentalists won't let them move it due to security and safety concerns. I should note that no people have ever died as a result of the nuclear waste stored in our county. Jason
Some people say the same things about Crown vic Interceptors.
Its not that i'm 'too young' its that 'i'm not american'.
howeve, the relevence is valid. rear-based lithium batteries end up with a crash situation similar to that of the pinto. The problem, however, is that the battries are an electrical medium, a spark i likely - a lot moreso that a mechanically generated spark around a gas tank.
They are quantifyable by risk, likelyhood, ability to contain, size, quantity of fuel, combustion level, etc.
If one type scores significantly worse than the others in these 'ratings' then its clear they're worse. Thats common sense.
Yes, emergency workers are practiced at toxic chemical spills - they're called 'hazmat workers'. I got some time in with a unit based in the Bay area a few years back. Their training and equipment is a long way from your common or garden variety firefighter.
I live in a medium-size town in rural Georgia. Theres a US highway or two here, an interstate not far away, the Atlanta Motor Speedway is just up the road, and yet i gave a friend of mine a call about 5 minutes ago over at the fire department - They can deal with nickle and lead based hybrids, but not lithium. That would require equipment from either Atlanta, Macon or Columbus. This is after its discovered of course, and as you well know, water based extinguishants can not, and should not be used.
By contrast, hydrogen fires tend to be very quick, and explosive IF ignited, the quickest, and easiest way to deal with a hydrogen fire is dispursement, dissipating it so that it doesn't ahve the ability to make a sustained combustion (I'm sure you all remmeber about filling test tubes with hydrogen at school, then lighting them for their 'squeaky pop' and also that if you didn't contain it right, it'd not fire as it would have spread)
Besides, going back to the point of the article, someone retrofitted. Since the vehicle is not instantly identifyable, or recognisable as cominaing lithium based batteries(of whatever condition) whats stopping the local responding tender using a water, or water-based extinguishant to dampen down, and attempt to reduce the probability of a conflagration. Hell, if the accident happens in the rain, or with snow around. water + lithium (or any group 1 metal for that matter) = BAD
Let me also regale a little story, of an old chemistry teacher i once had, and how she was fired. It explains this very point.
She was working, preparing an experiment for what would in the US be a first or second year college class. She was making some magnesium oxide for analysis by the class. A piece of the ribbon she was burning fell off her tongs, and near the other pieces she'd prepped (the big jar was locked back up in the storeroom) and in her 'panic' she swiped them, with her gloved hand, into the sink, and started the water. The resulting back destroyed half the bench (benches in those classrooms had sinks every 4 ft). Thaknfully, it was pre-lesson prep, but the classroom was out of action for 3 months. Magnesium is a lot less reactive than lithium is, and that was maybe 2oz of mag strips. She got fired for not only leaving the mag out, but for tossing it in the sink, with the water instead of using a piece of aluminium foil to smother it (Magnesium burns in strips, only because it doesn't have the heat taken away, something like a dinnerplate isn't flamable, as it would never stay hot enough to continue combustion) Think about it.
about as often as a gas tank does. They can rupture sometimes due to their own heat, or from impact/shock damage. A lot of the model aircraft that have caught fire or exploded had few metal parts, and impacted the flat, penetrative-object free rgound. A car is not shaped like a brick wall, with uniform density.
Brian Stell wrote in news:8oJMe.197$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:
Chemical or other types of plants are MORE dangerous to people than nuclear power plants. More people die from petro or coal production than from nuclear power generation.
Of course. The point is people are so fearful of nuclear plants and waste that we know exactly how to detect and secure while they wallow in toxics of all natures and hardly complain at all. You try to clean up the mess of chemicals in Lousiana, Houston and dozens of other areas that are highly industrialized and let us know how far you get. Also, see if you can build a cheap detector to identify the presence of any of the hundreds of hazardous compounds the plants emit. You don't even know what to look for. With nuclear we know exactly what to look for and how to secure it. I'd rather deal with a known than an unknown.
By comparison to fossil fuel plants, nuclear is exceptionally clean and safe.
Leonard
Those at either extreme of most issues lack common sense and intelectual honesty.
Leonard
snipped-for-privacy@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@pm4-broad-27.snlo.dialup.fix.net:
Those are less than the same concerns for on-site storage. More sites that have better chances of being attacked or burgled.
The "environmentalists" and NIMBY's actually are decreasing the country's security by opposing Yucca Mtn.They also harm the environment more by opposing nuclear power generation,thus using more carbon-based fuels that have far worse effects on the environment.
Yes,environmentalists would rather more people die from mining coal or producing petroleum,along with the negative health effects on citizens in using those products all across the country.
no, not neutrinos. they are notoriously hard to detect - you'd have to sit there and stare through billions of all the other alpha, beta & gamma traces that you /can/ see before you had any chance of seeing a neutrino reaction.
which is true, and directly contradictory with your previous statement!
Leonard, I agree with you. The environionmentalists (sp??) in California are preventing loggers from thinning out the forests by cutting down the largest trees and brush and leaving behind the smaller trees. The end result are forest fires that destroy the entire forest. They won't even allow the forest service workers to build fire roads into the forests. I care about the environment but I agree with the loggers and forest service. It's better to manage the forests instead of waiting for the forests to be destroyed by forest fires. I also agree that nuclear power plants are safer for the environment than power plants that burn fossil fuels. I feel sorry for anyone that lives near one of those power plants. Jason
Not true, they BARELY interact. but there's a huge number of them passing through us every second. Bubble chambers are heavily shielded, sealed high pressure water chambers. The aim is neutrenos sometimes 'interact' and on a body of water, but which has no flash point, to produce the bubbles. when a neutreno enters the chamber, and 'interacts' it produces a point for bubbles to form. (like the rough surfaces on the bottom of a pan produce the spots for bubbles to forum when the water approaches boiling.
and the proportion of neutrino reactions to alpha, beta & gamma is???
some research facilities may be, but not many of us get to press our noses against that kind of glass. normal mortals get to see the science museum bubble chamber of low pressure alcohol, which is not shielded specially so you /can/ see just how many of the other reactions there are.
flash point????????????
the pressure of the fluid is critically low in comparison to boiling point so any [reacting] passing particle leaves a "vapor trail" of local phase transition. but again, this talk in relation to the number of neutrino reactions you'll ever see is just nuts, because you'll probably never see one!
"New nuclear plants appear too pricey"
There's lots of people in the Yucca Mountain area who feel differently.
"Yucca Mountain"
"YUCCA MOUNTAIN: 'Monkey wrench'"
My point is: It is inconsistent to say it is safe unless you personally are willing to have you and those you care about live near it.
So far I've heard a lot of "in a perfect world it would be okay".
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.