|
|
#32
02-04-2007, 05:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] And create a new problem - nuclear waste is not easy to deal with. [/ QUOTE ] Ignorant BS. [/ QUOTE ] How so? The current best solution we have for dealing with nuclear biproducts is to seal them up and bury them until their levels of radiation decay. This is mega expensive and mega dangerous. I'm not talking about "nuclear waste will create mutants" science fiction, I'm talking about actual high-level waste that gets produced by nuclear reactors. Are you suggesting that it doesn't exist? If so, your ignorance trumps mine. [/ QUOTE ] Expensive and dangerous, yes. But with the newer reactor designs, it will be MUCH less dangerous to dispose of the waste than the current plants. Today's operating nuclear power plants are 30-year old technology, which is a lifetime, considering how new nuclear technology is. And the new designs are much safer, cleaner, and more efficient than the technology of yesterday. And we have to compare it to the alternative. Expanding the use of nuclear power is inevitable, we would be better off starting to further improve the technology as soon as possible. 
|
|
#33
02-04-2007, 11:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] And create a new problem - nuclear waste is not easy to deal with. If we simply add a ton of nuclear reactors to the planet, we replace the problem of spewing carbon emissions into the air with the problem of spewing nuclear waste into space. [/ QUOTE ] Space can handle it, if we could get it there. [/ QUOTE ] Placing nuclear waste in a safe orbit between Earth and Venus is doable. It's also supposedly pretty safe. Take a look at http://yarchive.net/space/science/nuke_waste.html However public opinion would probably be a show-stopper.
|
|
#34
02-04-2007, 11:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] And create a new problem - nuclear waste is not easy to deal with. If we simply add a ton of nuclear reactors to the planet, we replace the problem of spewing carbon emissions into the air with the problem of spewing nuclear waste into space. [/ QUOTE ] Space can handle it, if we could get it there. [/ QUOTE ] Placing nuclear waste in a safe orbit between Earth and Venus is doable. It's also supposedly pretty safe. Take a look at http://yarchive.net/space/science/nuke_waste.html However public opinion would probably be a show-stopper. [/ QUOTE ] The cost per pound to put anything into earth orbit is huge. It's mega-huge to put it into solar orbit. Visualize Nevada. Big hole. Really big. Not next to my condo but a couple dozen miles up US95. These tiny European countries are dealing with the waste and last I checked they're not just shipping it to Jersey.
|
|
#35
02-04-2007, 01:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] And create a new problem - nuclear waste is not easy to deal with. [/ QUOTE ] Ignorant BS. [/ QUOTE ] How so? The current best solution we have for dealing with nuclear biproducts is to seal them up and bury them until their levels of radiation decay. This is mega expensive and mega dangerous. I'm not talking about "nuclear waste will create mutants" science fiction, I'm talking about actual high-level waste that gets produced by nuclear reactors. Are you suggesting that it doesn't exist? If so, your ignorance trumps mine. [/ QUOTE ] Obviously you've never been to Nevada. [/ QUOTE ] Sure I have. But if the plan is to replace all energy currently being produced by carbon emission creating resources with nuclear power, then: 1. The amount of nuclear waste produced would go way up; and 2. The amount of nuclear waste being produced would pile up faster than the rate at which the radiation would decay down to safe levels, so even all the space in the Nevada desert would eventually fill up. I'm not saying that nuclear energy won't be the solution. I'm saying it isn't the solution now. We couldn't implement it tomorrow to solve the problem of carbon emissions without creating an equally difficult problem of nuclear waste disposal. Admittedly, this may get us some time but it isn't a magic bullet.
|
|
#36
02-04-2007, 01:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
[ QUOTE ]
Expensive and dangerous, yes. But with the newer reactor designs, it will be MUCH less dangerous to dispose of the waste than the current plants. Today's operating nuclear power plants are 30-year old technology, which is a lifetime, considering how new nuclear technology is. And the new designs are much safer, cleaner, and more efficient than the technology of yesterday. And we have to compare it to the alternative. Expanding the use of nuclear power is inevitable, we would be better off starting to further improve the technology as soon as possible. [/ QUOTE ] Right - so we agree. We should work on improving our nuclear reactors so that they will be a viable alternative in the future. That doesn't mean they are a magic bullet solution now. Recall that they initial post that started this discussion on nuclear energy said that a solution to global warming would be to reduce regs on nuclear power. This is exactly what we don't want to do. The regs that limit research can go, but the regs that limit the amount of nuclear waste that can be produced by a functioning reactor can not go.
|
|
#37
02-04-2007, 02:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] And create a new problem - nuclear waste is not easy to deal with. [/ QUOTE ] Ignorant BS. [/ QUOTE ] How so? The current best solution we have for dealing with nuclear biproducts is to seal them up and bury them until their levels of radiation decay. This is mega expensive and mega dangerous. I'm not talking about "nuclear waste will create mutants" science fiction, I'm talking about actual high-level waste that gets produced by nuclear reactors. Are you suggesting that it doesn't exist? If so, your ignorance trumps mine. [/ QUOTE ] Obviously you've never been to Nevada. [/ QUOTE ] Sure I have. But if the plan is to replace all energy currently being produced by carbon emission creating resources with nuclear power, then: 1. The amount of nuclear waste produced would go way up; and 2. The amount of nuclear waste being produced would pile up faster than the rate at which the radiation would decay down to safe levels, so even all the space in the Nevada desert would eventually fill up. I'm not saying that nuclear energy won't be the solution. I'm saying it isn't the solution now. We couldn't implement it tomorrow to solve the problem of carbon emissions without creating an equally difficult problem of nuclear waste disposal. Admittedly, this may get us some time but it isn't a magic bullet. [/ QUOTE ] You are unclear on the needed acreage VS the available acreage. You are likely also assuming static (and possibly ancient) technology. Last I heard, all of America's solid waste (garbage) for the next 50 years would be accomodated in a landfill no larger than 12 miles square*. Nuclear waste couldn't possibly be 0.1% of this volume**. * Source - My failing memory, maybe Bjorn Lomborg ** str8 outta my ass
|
|
#38
02-04-2007, 04:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
The bulk of the electricity in this country and others are produced from coal and oil. They are burned to produce steam which turns a turbine to produce electricity. Burning coal and oil produces a lot of carbon dioxide which is a 'greenhouse gas'.
The switch to Nuclear generators for the production of electricity will reduce the greenhouse gasses as there are virtually no emmissions w/nuclear.
|
|
#39
02-04-2007, 06:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] And create a new problem - nuclear waste is not easy to deal with. If we simply add a ton of nuclear reactors to the planet, we replace the problem of spewing carbon emissions into the air with the problem of spewing nuclear waste into space. [/ QUOTE ] Space can handle it, if we could get it there. [/ QUOTE ] Placing nuclear waste in a safe orbit between Earth and Venus is doable. It's also supposedly pretty safe. Take a look at http://yarchive.net/space/science/nuke_waste.html However public opinion would probably be a show-stopper. [/ QUOTE ] The cost per pound to put anything into earth orbit is huge. It's mega-huge to put it into solar orbit. Visualize Nevada. Big hole. Really big. Not next to my condo but a couple dozen miles up US95. These tiny European countries are dealing with the waste and last I checked they're not just shipping it to Jersey. [/ QUOTE ] Yup it's expensive, given current launch technology. Overall burial is probably better. However safety is not much of a concern. Containers can be built that will survive worst-case reentry scenarios. Also the results of a container failing during reentry are not nearly as bad as you appear to imagine. (Try reading the link I quoted. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )
|
|
#40
02-04-2007, 06:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Global Warming: What needs to be done?
[ QUOTE ]
Sure I have. But if the plan is to replace all energy currently being produced by carbon emission creating resources with nuclear power, then: 1. The amount of nuclear waste produced would go way up; and 2. The amount of nuclear waste being produced would pile up faster than the rate at which the radiation would decay down to safe levels, so even all the space in the Nevada desert would eventually fill up. [/ QUOTE ] This is rubbish. We will run out of uranium before this happens. Unfortunately it would only take about 10 years to use up all minable uranium resources if we were to power our entire global economy from nuclear power.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
