Re: Life after the oil crash

In article <dafg9d$6mh$4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, rlbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Richard Bell) wrote:
>In article <E6Hye.13223$U4.1590604@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>Bruce Sinclair <bruce.sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>In article <dafd88$6mh$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>rlbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Richard Bell) wrote:
>>>In article <Rxoye.12917$U4.1563524@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>>Bruce Sinclair <bruce.sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>In article <dad3ep$90d$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>>>rlbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Richard Bell) wrote:
>>>>>In article <e%kye.11575$aA5.3141@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>>>>Nocturnal <nocturnal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am scared and
>>>>>>feel a little hopeless. I have a five year old son and I would love to
> see
>>>>>>him grow up. I'm sure some of you have children as well. What can I do
> to
>>>>>>prepare for the coming oil shortage? How bad will it really be? Will it
> be
>>>
>>>>>>all out hysteria with Armageddon like things happening?
>>>>>>
>>>>>The oil shortage is a lot further off than you think. However, that does
>>>>>not mean that we should be complacent. Start lobbying your legislators for
>>>>>a sweeping expansion of the use of nuclear power. The prime complaints
>>>>>against nuclear power are the waste products and nuclear proliferation.
>>>>>Given that nuclear fission products are neatly contained in the spent fuel
>>>>>pellets, and that even a once-through fuel cycle is practical for a long
> time
>>>>>(a ten percent rise in nuclear electricity will pay for extracting uranium
>>>>>from sea water), spent fuel is a non-issue. We have long since built steel
>>>>>casks that will survive intense fires, massive collissions, and falling
>>>>>onto hardened steel spikes from several stories.
>>>>
>>>>Survive for how many tens of thousands of years ? Until you are dead is not
>>>>sufficient - sorry :)
>>>>
>>>The waste repository need not sequester the waste for more than six hundred
>>>years.
>>
>>Why do you believe this ? Please name that isotope :)
>
>After six hundred years, any isotope that is still present in any significant
>quantity isn't all that radioactive. Long lived and highly radioactive are
>two mutually exclusive terms.

While not new this is still wrong. :) Again, please name the isotopes that
you think are sufficiently decayed in 600 years ... and then say why the
longer lived ones are "insignificant".

>>>The virtually indestructible transport casks do not have to last more than
>>>a few years (a few weeks if there is already a destination available when
>>>they are completed).
>>
>>INteresting point of view ... tho I still believe you are wrong. Again,
>>please name your isotope :)
>>
>The radiation emitted by the contents of the cask are less of a problem than
>rust, so the isotope in question is O16.

<sigh> So you don't know then. OK ... you could just have said :)

Bruce


-------------------------------------
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
- George Bernard Shaw
Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
- Ambrose Bierce

Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)
.

Quantcast