Re: "Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming"
- From: dezakin@xxxxxxx
- Date: 28 Mar 2007 12:39:02 -0700
On Mar 28, 12:23 pm, xnich...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 28 Mar, 19:54, deza...@xxxxxxx wrote:
You have to calculate the consquences for up to millions of years.You certainly do not. We dont for chemical wastes which lasts forever.
You just revisit the issue every century or two
Only an elemental waste can last 'forever', (even then it won't be
forever)!
Assuming the reactors are re-processing the radioactive element
plutonium, the problem will last for longer than human civilisation
has.
Like the romans worried about the future of their piping. Its a
nonproblem. In the future it will be a resource. If civilization ends,
its not our problem anymore.
Thorium reactors wouldn't have that problem, but I know of no working
example so far.
The MSBR ran for years at a time at oak ridge.
There is also the issue of safe transport to the storage site.The volume of spent fuel is so tiny that this risk is insignificant.
They're too big to steal, to tough to damage in a crash, and are
shipped too infrequently to worry about bizzare acts of god.
I used to live quite close to a railway line which shipped stuff up to
Sellafield.
The containers are tested for accidental damage, but it's not popular
with people who have to live nearby.
And yet people never pay attention to shipments of chlorine gas or
natural gas terminals which presents far higher risks.
And how has anyone been hurt by spent fuel?
The nature of the issue is such that you need a very long time to
calculate that.
The argument reminds me of all these programmes on radio and tv
nowadays, that talk about how Chernobyl is now a wild-life refuge.
Come on! Is that what we'll have to put up with in the future?
The timescales of the experiment are simply too short to make any
scientific judgement on the issue.
This is just ignorant. Spent fuel is isolated, compact and manageable,
quite unlike any coal waste which is radioactive and dispersed into
the lungs of anyone nearby.
Sasol is one of the most profitable companies in south africa
with contracts to build large synfuel plants in the US and China.
Above 30 dollars per barrel Synfuel makes absolute economic sense, and
thats why plant orders are being pursued today.
Well, using the Peak-Oil position, you would need to argue for relying
on coal for the next 400 years then.
Dont build strawmen.
Sure, eventually the coal runs out and you make fuel from limestone
and water.
-Snipped fantasy of electric vehicals replacing everything-
Sure someday. Not much in the next fifty years though besides PHEV for
commuters.
This will make a big impact, sure, but demand will continue to rise.
Ships can run on all sorts of power supplies including Gas turbines
and even Stirling engines.
This doesnt change the fuel. Gas turbines have logistic problems.
Stirling engines are entirely unsuitable for civilian shipping.
Airplanes, Diggers, Hauling houses across the USA - maybe a different
issue
Coal Lobby? Yeah, maybe in America I suppose.
Coal companies in Europe are pretty much chicken-feed nowadays.
Oh sheesh. In Germany they're quite powerful.
Well if they are going to prevent expansion of renewable energy they
have to be fought.
They dont need to. Renewable energy will fail on its own. They only
need to fight nuclear.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: "Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming"
- From: xnichols
- Re: "Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming"
- References:
- "Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming"
- From: xnichols
- Re: "Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming"
- From: dezakin
- Re: "Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming"
- From: xnichols
- Re: "Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming"
- From: dezakin
- Re: "Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming"
- From: xnichols
- Re: "Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming"
- From: dezakin
- Re: "Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming"
- From: xnichols
- Re: "Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming"
- From: dezakin
- Re: "Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming"
- From: xnichols
- Re: "Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming"
- From: dezakin
- Re: "Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming"
- From: xnichols
- "Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming"
- Prev by Date: Re: "Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming"
- Next by Date: Re: Compressed Air Engine
- Previous by thread: Re: "Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming"
- Next by thread: Re: "Nuclear energy 'not the solution to global warming"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|