Owner59
Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: shallowdeep
quote:
ORIGINAL: Owner59
I honestly don`t see the waste problem being solved and just storing it forever is not an option.
First, storing it "forever" is an option, because the stuff doesn't last forever. In fact, the most radioactive isotopes decay the most rapidly. Within 10,000 years there will be a very significant reduction in radioactivity, within a million it won't be appreciably different than the uranium that we took out of the ground in the first place, so putting it back in ceases to be an issue. The question is can we store it safely enough, long enough. A repository like Yucca Mountain can meet the 10,000 year mark with a high degree of confidence, and probably the million year mark too. Even in the case that it doesn't, the results will be localized and far from catastrophic.
I understand your point about not wanting to leave it for a future solution (I'm still waiting on the flying car my Weekly Reader promised within five years), but I guess I'm inherently optimistic about the future. If 1000 years from now humanity decides that it doesn't want to deal with the small risk of the waste, there are some solutions I can think of that should be viable by then.
One has already been mentioned: sending it into space - either the sun, or some planet/moon/asteroid designated as a repository. We currently don't have the lift capacity or safety record to make that viable, but if, 1000 years from now, humanity still hasn't figured out how to safely take large amounts of mass into space or hasn't made substantial progress on cancer (rendering the waste innocuous), then it probably has bigger things to worry about than a relatively small amount of buried radioactive waste. Besides, the even smaller amount that might leak out will actually be beneficial. After a thousand years with no progress, I say it's time to inject some mutations and speed evolution along.
And, yes, that last was facetious.
quote:
Taking the power today and leaving the waste for our kids to deal with tomorrow, is selfish,irresponsible and also not an option.
If there were a no risk alternative, I'd be inclined to agree. But that isn't the case. As the article Level linked points out, the soot from coal power plants alone kills 24,000 Americans prematurely each year. That's more than the radioactive waste is ever likely to do. Factor in the effect that unchecked carbon emissions are going to have, and the status quo becomes untenable. If I thought there were a better way than nuclear power to alter that status quo, I wouldn't be supporting nuclear. Solar energy has a lot of promise, but even in the more optimistic plans (speaking only of those that have actually been thought out a bit) it's going to take a long time to transition fully. The physical resources and infrastructure changes required dwarf those necessary for nuclear. If we really want to make a difference within the next 20-30 years, I think nuclear power is going to have to shoulder most of the burden.
[edited to fix link]
"First, storing it "forever" is an option, because the stuff doesn't last forever. In fact, the most radioactive isotopes decay the most rapidly. Within 10,000 years there will be a very significant reduction in radioactivity, within a million it won't be appreciably different than the uranium that we took out of the ground in the first place, so putting it back in ceases to be an issue."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OMG! Had to take a few minutes to recover from the laughing fit.
Sorry friend,...the term "forever" works quite well,considering what ten thousand years means, in human terms.For us,the USA(a smidge over 200 years old)10 thousand years is the same as forever,considering that`s about 500 generations.
Jesus died a little over two thousand years ago,that`s only about 100 generations.
A little sense of scale would help.
Also consider that the waste produced today, will take 10,000 + years to cool and the waste produced in a hundred year from now ,will only cool 10,100 years from now and so on.
And that`s just a fuck`n estimate! No one knows what state the nuke waste will be in 10,000 fuck`n years.
It`s not like it`s a one time deal with one single load.It`s a never ending stream of waste.If you produce nuke waste year after year after year,you`ll have a never ending river of nuke waste to deal with.
Right now,they store the waste on the plant site,b/c the "waste problem" hasn`t been solved.The pile grows and grows.
All the transport,the handling,all the double handling,the storage and re-storage will be a never ending cost to us,charging fees and expenses (thousands of) years into the future,long after the kilowatt was generated,sold and used.
It`s just not moral.If you add all the hidden and future costs of generating power from nukes,it`s also not economical.
We should end this folly and stop throwing good money after bad.We should let them wear out and go off-line,deal with the waste we have,say we gave it our best try and put that baby to bed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There`s a lot of myths concerning nuclear power and nuclear waste.Myths that don`t serve us well when we`re trying to make our long term energy choices.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Germany has proven that the solar option works, by using solar technology to meet their growing electric needs.
Instead of building yet another nuke plant,they started installing panels on every south west facing roof and build several solar panel fields.This move saved them from having to rely on buliding another nuke plant.It works there,it can work here,if we had the leadership.
The nuclear industry has been a failure and leaves us a costly legacy.
If we put all the money spent on things nuclear ,including the all government subsidies and under-writings,the money spent on nuclear clean-ups and waste handling and ore production,we could put solar panels on half the wastelands/deserts in America and replace the power gained from nukes.
I imagine that a hundred yeras from now(if there is a now, in a 100 years),those folks will look back at us and the nuke waste we left them with disgust.
I also imagine that today`s pro-nukers coundn`t give a shit about what future generations think of us.It`s part and parcel of the mindset at work.
Nuclear is/was a bad idea that`s taken a while to reveal it`s self.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My vote,go solar,go conservation,geo-thermal,wind,tidal,hydro,etc.It`s all viable,cost affective,renewable and proven to work.
It`s not a complete solution,there is no one single solution.Solar and non-nuke alternatives are only part of a multi-dimensional energy solution, which includes the use of "cleaner"oil,coal,NG,bio fuels,etc, as well as the other alt. sources.
< Message edited by Owner59 -- 5/3/2008 12:45:19 PM >
|
RE: Nuclear energy: best hope, or deal with the devil? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread