By that logic we shouldn't even send anything to space because a rocket can crash into someone's yard. BTW the space elevator will be doing the disposal.
By that logic we shouldn't even send anything to space because a rocket can crash into someone's yard. BTW the space elevator will be doing the disposal.
Originally posted by: Toastedlightly
I think the solution here is to reduce consumption. But I will be ignored, as common sense never prevails
The root of ALL enviornmental problems is population growth. Reducing consumption would help, though.
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Toastedlightly
I think the solution here is to reduce consumption. But I will be ignored, as common sense never prevails
The root of ALL enviornmental problems is population growth. Reducing consumption would help, though.
Nuclear's capacity to cause sterility could definitely help with that. It might even eliminate the pin head gene.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Toastedlightly
I think the solution here is to reduce consumption. But I will be ignored, as common sense never prevails
The root of ALL enviornmental problems is population growth. Reducing consumption would help, though.
Nuclear's capacity to cause sterility could definitely help with that. It might even eliminate the pin head gene.
but you can only act like a broken record, without providing any evidence that it will or ever has.
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Toastedlightly
I think the solution here is to reduce consumption. But I will be ignored, as common sense never prevails
The root of ALL enviornmental problems is population growth. Reducing consumption would help, though.
Nuclear's capacity to cause sterility could definitely help with that. It might even eliminate the pin head gene.
but you can only act like a broken record, without providing any evidence that it will or ever has.
That is not the issue. The issue is that it can coupled with the fact it never gets safely stored. It's always promises and solutions that CAN be created but never ARE. It's just a big game to make money today and fuck the future when the money people are all dead. Just moral pigs. As I said, if there were any real intention to clean up nuclear it would and could have happened long ago.
Broken record. You said this countless time but never provided any evidence that it cannot be safely stored. ...now go ahead and Google some.
Paratus
Lifer
- Jun 4, 2004
- 17,643
- 15,830
- 146
For the folks who are very hard up for Solar Power. Here are few numbers to remember:
1300 - Total irradiance in Watts per Meter squared the Earth receives from the Sun in Orbit.
850 - Total irradiance in Watts per Meter squared on the ground.
%30-%60 - Most efficient solar cells (%60 is only in the lab as far as I know)
250,000,000 - number of registered motor vehicles
100Kw - number of kilowatts your average 4cyl engine supplies
50000 - number of square kilometers required to replace the instantaneous power provided by those engines.
1300 - Total irradiance in Watts per Meter squared the Earth receives from the Sun in Orbit.
850 - Total irradiance in Watts per Meter squared on the ground.
%30-%60 - Most efficient solar cells (%60 is only in the lab as far as I know)
250,000,000 - number of registered motor vehicles
100Kw - number of kilowatts your average 4cyl engine supplies
50000 - number of square kilometers required to replace the instantaneous power provided by those engines.
Paratus
Lifer
- Jun 4, 2004
- 17,643
- 15,830
- 146
Some other numbers - per wiki
88,250,000 - MJ/KG Energy density of Uranium 235 used in a fission power plant
47 - MJ/KG Energy density of Gasoline
(For an equivalent amount of energy guess which one leaves over 1,000,000 times less nasty waste )
(Disclaimer)
I am an engineer (mechanical and/or pinhead )
I have a nuclear safety engineer in the family
I operate the largest sets of solar arrays ever flown in space
88,250,000 - MJ/KG Energy density of Uranium 235 used in a fission power plant
47 - MJ/KG Energy density of Gasoline
(For an equivalent amount of energy guess which one leaves over 1,000,000 times less nasty waste
)(Disclaimer)
I am an engineer (mechanical and/or pinhead
)I have a nuclear safety engineer in the family
I operate the largest sets of solar arrays ever flown in space
Originally posted by: Paratus
Some other numbers - per wiki
88,250,000 - MJ/KG Energy density of Uranium 235 used in a fission power plant
47 - MJ/KG Energy density of Gasoline
(For an equivalent amount of energy guess which one leaves over 1,000,000 times less nasty waste
(Disclaimer)
I am an engineer (mechanical and/or pinhead
I have a nuclear safety engineer in the family
I operate the largest sets of solar arrays ever flown in space
There is the same amount of energy in a KG of Gas as there is in a KG of Uranium.
You google me a nation where the long term storage if nuclear waste has been approved. It's all hung up in debate. Meanwhile the waste sits and waits for the next generation a fuck you from people like us.
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 7,925
- 1
- 81
That's misleading, gasoline is obviously not fissile.Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Paratus
Some other numbers - per wiki
88,250,000 - MJ/KG Energy density of Uranium 235 used in a fission power plant
47 - MJ/KG Energy density of Gasoline
(For an equivalent amount of energy guess which one leaves over 1,000,000 times less nasty waste
(Disclaimer)
I am an engineer (mechanical and/or pinhead
I have a nuclear safety engineer in the family
I operate the largest sets of solar arrays ever flown in space
There is the same amount of energy in a KG of Gas as there is in a KG of Uranium.
I never claimed anything about it being approved. You claimed the danger, you provide the evidence. We've been asking you for your contamination evidence since this thread started. 24 pages later you still can't provide it.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Paratus
Some other numbers - per wiki
88,250,000 - MJ/KG Energy density of Uranium 235 used in a fission power plant
47 - MJ/KG Energy density of Gasoline
(For an equivalent amount of energy guess which one leaves over 1,000,000 times less nasty waste
(Disclaimer)
I am an engineer (mechanical and/or pinhead
I have a nuclear safety engineer in the family
I operate the largest sets of solar arrays ever flown in space
There is the same amount of energy in a KG of Gas as there is in a KG of Uranium.
Where did you pull this nonsense. A chunk of uranium the size of a baseball is equivalent to 500 million gallons of gasoline. I can get you a source if you like, but whats the point.
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 7,925
- 1
- 81
He's right, all matter of the same mass contains the same amount of energy (by E=mc^2). The difference is atomic fission allows you to exploit much more of that potential energy than breaking the chemical bonds.Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Paratus
Some other numbers - per wiki
88,250,000 - MJ/KG Energy density of Uranium 235 used in a fission power plant
47 - MJ/KG Energy density of Gasoline
(For an equivalent amount of energy guess which one leaves over 1,000,000 times less nasty waste
(Disclaimer)
I am an engineer (mechanical and/or pinhead
I have a nuclear safety engineer in the family
I operate the largest sets of solar arrays ever flown in space
There is the same amount of energy in a KG of Gas as there is in a KG of Uranium.
Where did you pull this nonsense. A chunk of uranium the size of a baseball is equivalent to 500 million gallons of gasoline. I can get you a source if you like, but whats the point.
Eventually, we will probably be able to economically convert any matter into energy, but with our current knowledge, it's only practical with fissile materials like Uranium-235.
Its been quite here, looks like moonbean is having a hard time using google to fins an nuclear waste contamination epidemic.
I'm back!
The nuclear epidemic is the continual build up of nuclear waste with no place to safely put it. As it has been so it will be promises and lies by moral lepers.
The kite thingi is a trip. There's a fascinating micro wind machine newly invented that generates wind from a vibrating band of Kevlar. It's got me thinking about something myself.
The nuclear epidemic is the continual build up of nuclear waste with no place to safely put it. As it has been so it will be promises and lies by moral lepers.
The kite thingi is a trip. There's a fascinating micro wind machine newly invented that generates wind from a vibrating band of Kevlar. It's got me thinking about something myself.
with evidence? I'm so excited! I just felt my dick move!
....what a tease. Again, no evidence of:
1. Limited space for nuclear waste
2. unsafe storage
The Nuclear Waste Problem
What can be done with the existing waste? What right do we have to produce more waste?
Nuclear Waste Is The Raw Material For Nuclear Weapons
Nuclear power is a product of the development of nuclear weapons during the second world war. Almost all the technical processes known and employed by the nuclear industry today were invented at that time with the aim of manufacturing bombs. Those who possess the necessary know-how and run nuclear reactors can also manufacture nuclear weapons. The link between nuclear weapons and nuclear power remains obvious, although it is not recognized by all, particularly not by the advocates of nuclear power. In France and the U.S.S.R. on the other hand, the Government makes no official distinction between civilian and military nuclear technology.
Ironically, in the first years of the nuclear industry, the most desired product of nuclear technology was the spent reactor fuel. This is because once uranium fuel is used in a nuclear reactor, plutonium, the most suitable fissile material for making bombs, is formed. By rather basic chemical processes, called "reprocessing", the plutonium may be separated from spent fuel and used in weapons. Even so-called "reactor plutonium" produced from nuclear fuel used in civilian electricity producing nuclear reactors, can be used in nuclear bombs. The U.S. military has proven this by detonating reactor plutonium in an experimental bomb.
The use of highly enriched uranium, the only other fissile material used in nuclear bombs, is much more difficult as greater demand is put on technical and economic resources. Thus, the first large nuclear power station in the United States was operated for over six years with the only aim being production of nuclear "waste". The energy produced was unwanted and unused.
All reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel should be opposed because it makes plutonium easily available for weapons production. Direct storage of existing spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing is better but still fails to guarantee against future bomb making. In Sweden, the high-level waste storage methods which have been discussed up until now, are not designed to prevent deliberate encroachment. With time, spent nuclear fuel becomes more tempting to bomb makers as it inevitably decays into "cleaner" weapons-grade plutonium. This is because the radioactive isotopes decay at different rates resulting in the proportion of plutonium-239 increasing over time.
The Waste That Isn't There
During the long introductory epoch of nuclear power, from the 1940's to the late 1950's, there was officially no spent fuel problem, for the simple reason that irradiated fuel was a coveted, classified military material. Naturally, the technicians employed in the development and running of reactors must have been conscious of the spent fuel waste problem, but as far as outsiders go, the problem was almost non-existent. Strangely, this attitude lingered on among wielders of power and opinion makers as late as 1970, and in some extreme cases even longer. As part of the preparations for large-scale Swedish nuclear development in the 1960's, the bizarre claim was made that the waste was totally negligible and, furthermore, that the very small amount that would occur would be needed for medical purposes. Many facts indicate that those responsible for the development really were seriously uninformed, or, rather, misinformed.
Nuclear Sacrifice Areas
Nuclear waste produced by reactors and uranium mines remains radioactive for so long that it must be isolated from biological processes for hundreds of thousands of years. Unfortunately, such isolation is at present impossible, even using the most advanced technology.
Regardless of the dangers, large quantities of civil as well as military waste are being disposed of in more or less temporary and questionable ways, often in the immediate vicinity of the nuclear power plants or other nuclear related facilities. Some of these installations have already polluted their environment for an indeterminate length of time and should be considered nuclear sacrifice areas. Dispersed radioactivity has contaminated these areas to such a degree that they pose a deadly threat to human life. Some examples are Savannah River and Hanford, U.S.A.; Kyshtym and Chernobyl in U.S.S.R., and Sellafield (Windscale) in England. Other nuclear sacrifice areas have been created as a result of nuclear bomb testing carried out by the U.S.A., France, U.S.S.R., England, China, and India. Some well known nuclear-bomb contaminated areas are the Bikini and Muroroa Islands in the South Pacific and Novaja Zemlya in the U.S.S.R.
There are about ten areas on the Earth where nuclear technology has devastated possibilities for normal life now and far into the future. However, the most important thing isn't the number or size of nuclear sacrifice areas, but the fact that the released, long-lived radioactivity cannot be stopped from spreading further in food chains via air and water.
Nuclear Waste Is A Universal Concern
By the continual circulation of and interchange between air, water, and organic material, Sweden is connected to all other countries and they to Sweden. Thus, it is not enough only to handle the Swedish waste in a satisfactory way and to stop the Swedish production of waste. If only a single country that has nuclear waste fails to handle it safely, life on Earth will be threatened. The catastrophe at Chernobyl has demonstrated the global connections. There, according to the Soviets, only a small portion (3-5%) of the radioactive material in the reactor core leaked out from just one reactor. Yet a whole culture, the Saami in Scandinavia, thousands of kilometers away, was threatened by the immediate effects of the accident (cesium fallout). Since 70-85% of the long-lived isotopes (i.e. plutonium) fell inside the drainage basin of the Baltic Sea, the general long-term effects on Sweden cannot yet be determined.
From a long-term perspective, it doesn't make much difference where the radioactivity leaks out. The waste contains isotopes so long-lived that they have time to spread all over the Earth, concentrate in food chains (as PCB's have done) and then decline very slowly in radioactivity over thousands of years. Thus, the global connections make the whole world's nuclear waste everyone's concern.
Political Instability
As difficult as the economic aspects are, an even more difficult obstacle is political instability. Is there any country in possession of atomic power that, seen against the background of history, can guarantee the technical, social, and political stability necessary to deal with the waste problem over thousands of generations? For every one of the world's hundreds of reactors, politicians from a later generation will be forced to invest huge amounts of money, not for current problems or to make popular gestures for the benefit of voters, but to clean up after past generations.
The perspective becomes even more frightening if we consider the present political situation in some of the nuclear nations. For example, there are not only unstable countries in a state of near bankruptcy like Mexico and Poland, but also powder kegs like South Africa and Israel. How will the complicated and sensitive problem of nuclear waste be approached if unscrupulous dictators like Marcos or Somoza gain power, not to mention tomorrow's equivalent of madmen like Nero, Hitler, and Idi Amin? Is it realistic to believe that actions of war and sabotage will never in the future, not even for thousands of years, involve any vital installation connected to nuclear power or waste anywhere on Earth?
Unfortunately, nuclear weapons production and nuclear power in general have already created tonnes of plutonium waste. Most countries lack the sense of responsibility and the physical qualifications for initiating a safe storage program for existing wastes, let alone for the quantity expected in the future. Further, many nuclear nations also are at risk from earthquakes and volcanos, which in the blink of an eye can destroy safety programs and spread nuclear waste throughout the biosphere.
In 1985 the leaders of the French Government ordered the sinking of a Greenpeace vessel, which was taking part in a peaceful campaign against the detonation of nuclear bombs and poisoning of the Pacific area with plutonium. This act of terror was committed by one of the world's leading nuclear states and a so-called "western democracy". One can only hope that other nations do not share such a morbidly twisted attitude towards global responsibility.
Moral Responsibility
The continued use of nuclear power in the world is based on, among other things, the assumption that there is a solution to the waste problem. However, there is no natural law stating that every technical or scientific problem actually has a solution. The waste problem is not solved and may not have a satisfactory solution at all. From a moral and ethical point of view two questions emerge:
What can be done with the existing waste?
What right do we have to produce more waste?
Neither question is simple to answer. The first is a question of solidarity and responsibility towards ourselves and coming generations, even towards life itself. The utmost must be done, with all available resources as soon as possible, to take care of the waste which already exists. Otherwise, the whole problem will be left to the coming generations. This means that people opposed to nuclear power must not only support meaningful research but demand that it be given all resources that can be mobilized.
For the second question, judgment must be based upon the technical and scientific possibilities for finding a solution that eliminates the danger now and forever. We must guarantee the utmost safety for the wastes for hundreds of thousands of years in the future. Will society be able to build, operate and guard the necessary facilities? And how many of the approximately 30 countries embroiled in nuclear technology will be able to afford such costs? Perhaps most of the industrial countries, but not many third world countries. It is not realistic to think that the third world nations which presently struggle to meet their basic needs have the resources to set aside large sums of money for future nuclear waste programs. Despite this fact, the IAEA, Western atomic power companies (including ASEA-ATOM in Sweden) and other atomic industrial interests are making great efforts to supply more and more third world countries with nuclear power technology.
Are we capable of judging how the coming generations of human beings will react to the nuclear waste they inherit? The unknown aspects are so great that it is not morally acceptable to produce nuclear waste based upon the hope of future solutions. The question of whether more waste should be produced, i.e. if continued operation of nuclear power stations should be allowed, must be answered with a clear and unequivocal "No!".
-----------------
What can be done with the existing waste? What right do we have to produce more waste?
Nuclear Waste Is The Raw Material For Nuclear Weapons
Nuclear power is a product of the development of nuclear weapons during the second world war. Almost all the technical processes known and employed by the nuclear industry today were invented at that time with the aim of manufacturing bombs. Those who possess the necessary know-how and run nuclear reactors can also manufacture nuclear weapons. The link between nuclear weapons and nuclear power remains obvious, although it is not recognized by all, particularly not by the advocates of nuclear power. In France and the U.S.S.R. on the other hand, the Government makes no official distinction between civilian and military nuclear technology.
Ironically, in the first years of the nuclear industry, the most desired product of nuclear technology was the spent reactor fuel. This is because once uranium fuel is used in a nuclear reactor, plutonium, the most suitable fissile material for making bombs, is formed. By rather basic chemical processes, called "reprocessing", the plutonium may be separated from spent fuel and used in weapons. Even so-called "reactor plutonium" produced from nuclear fuel used in civilian electricity producing nuclear reactors, can be used in nuclear bombs. The U.S. military has proven this by detonating reactor plutonium in an experimental bomb.
The use of highly enriched uranium, the only other fissile material used in nuclear bombs, is much more difficult as greater demand is put on technical and economic resources. Thus, the first large nuclear power station in the United States was operated for over six years with the only aim being production of nuclear "waste". The energy produced was unwanted and unused.
All reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel should be opposed because it makes plutonium easily available for weapons production. Direct storage of existing spent nuclear fuel without reprocessing is better but still fails to guarantee against future bomb making. In Sweden, the high-level waste storage methods which have been discussed up until now, are not designed to prevent deliberate encroachment. With time, spent nuclear fuel becomes more tempting to bomb makers as it inevitably decays into "cleaner" weapons-grade plutonium. This is because the radioactive isotopes decay at different rates resulting in the proportion of plutonium-239 increasing over time.
The Waste That Isn't There
During the long introductory epoch of nuclear power, from the 1940's to the late 1950's, there was officially no spent fuel problem, for the simple reason that irradiated fuel was a coveted, classified military material. Naturally, the technicians employed in the development and running of reactors must have been conscious of the spent fuel waste problem, but as far as outsiders go, the problem was almost non-existent. Strangely, this attitude lingered on among wielders of power and opinion makers as late as 1970, and in some extreme cases even longer. As part of the preparations for large-scale Swedish nuclear development in the 1960's, the bizarre claim was made that the waste was totally negligible and, furthermore, that the very small amount that would occur would be needed for medical purposes. Many facts indicate that those responsible for the development really were seriously uninformed, or, rather, misinformed.
Nuclear Sacrifice Areas
Nuclear waste produced by reactors and uranium mines remains radioactive for so long that it must be isolated from biological processes for hundreds of thousands of years. Unfortunately, such isolation is at present impossible, even using the most advanced technology.
Regardless of the dangers, large quantities of civil as well as military waste are being disposed of in more or less temporary and questionable ways, often in the immediate vicinity of the nuclear power plants or other nuclear related facilities. Some of these installations have already polluted their environment for an indeterminate length of time and should be considered nuclear sacrifice areas. Dispersed radioactivity has contaminated these areas to such a degree that they pose a deadly threat to human life. Some examples are Savannah River and Hanford, U.S.A.; Kyshtym and Chernobyl in U.S.S.R., and Sellafield (Windscale) in England. Other nuclear sacrifice areas have been created as a result of nuclear bomb testing carried out by the U.S.A., France, U.S.S.R., England, China, and India. Some well known nuclear-bomb contaminated areas are the Bikini and Muroroa Islands in the South Pacific and Novaja Zemlya in the U.S.S.R.
There are about ten areas on the Earth where nuclear technology has devastated possibilities for normal life now and far into the future. However, the most important thing isn't the number or size of nuclear sacrifice areas, but the fact that the released, long-lived radioactivity cannot be stopped from spreading further in food chains via air and water.
Nuclear Waste Is A Universal Concern
By the continual circulation of and interchange between air, water, and organic material, Sweden is connected to all other countries and they to Sweden. Thus, it is not enough only to handle the Swedish waste in a satisfactory way and to stop the Swedish production of waste. If only a single country that has nuclear waste fails to handle it safely, life on Earth will be threatened. The catastrophe at Chernobyl has demonstrated the global connections. There, according to the Soviets, only a small portion (3-5%) of the radioactive material in the reactor core leaked out from just one reactor. Yet a whole culture, the Saami in Scandinavia, thousands of kilometers away, was threatened by the immediate effects of the accident (cesium fallout). Since 70-85% of the long-lived isotopes (i.e. plutonium) fell inside the drainage basin of the Baltic Sea, the general long-term effects on Sweden cannot yet be determined.
From a long-term perspective, it doesn't make much difference where the radioactivity leaks out. The waste contains isotopes so long-lived that they have time to spread all over the Earth, concentrate in food chains (as PCB's have done) and then decline very slowly in radioactivity over thousands of years. Thus, the global connections make the whole world's nuclear waste everyone's concern.
Political Instability
As difficult as the economic aspects are, an even more difficult obstacle is political instability. Is there any country in possession of atomic power that, seen against the background of history, can guarantee the technical, social, and political stability necessary to deal with the waste problem over thousands of generations? For every one of the world's hundreds of reactors, politicians from a later generation will be forced to invest huge amounts of money, not for current problems or to make popular gestures for the benefit of voters, but to clean up after past generations.
The perspective becomes even more frightening if we consider the present political situation in some of the nuclear nations. For example, there are not only unstable countries in a state of near bankruptcy like Mexico and Poland, but also powder kegs like South Africa and Israel. How will the complicated and sensitive problem of nuclear waste be approached if unscrupulous dictators like Marcos or Somoza gain power, not to mention tomorrow's equivalent of madmen like Nero, Hitler, and Idi Amin? Is it realistic to believe that actions of war and sabotage will never in the future, not even for thousands of years, involve any vital installation connected to nuclear power or waste anywhere on Earth?
Unfortunately, nuclear weapons production and nuclear power in general have already created tonnes of plutonium waste. Most countries lack the sense of responsibility and the physical qualifications for initiating a safe storage program for existing wastes, let alone for the quantity expected in the future. Further, many nuclear nations also are at risk from earthquakes and volcanos, which in the blink of an eye can destroy safety programs and spread nuclear waste throughout the biosphere.
In 1985 the leaders of the French Government ordered the sinking of a Greenpeace vessel, which was taking part in a peaceful campaign against the detonation of nuclear bombs and poisoning of the Pacific area with plutonium. This act of terror was committed by one of the world's leading nuclear states and a so-called "western democracy". One can only hope that other nations do not share such a morbidly twisted attitude towards global responsibility.
Moral Responsibility
The continued use of nuclear power in the world is based on, among other things, the assumption that there is a solution to the waste problem. However, there is no natural law stating that every technical or scientific problem actually has a solution. The waste problem is not solved and may not have a satisfactory solution at all. From a moral and ethical point of view two questions emerge:
What can be done with the existing waste?
What right do we have to produce more waste?
Neither question is simple to answer. The first is a question of solidarity and responsibility towards ourselves and coming generations, even towards life itself. The utmost must be done, with all available resources as soon as possible, to take care of the waste which already exists. Otherwise, the whole problem will be left to the coming generations. This means that people opposed to nuclear power must not only support meaningful research but demand that it be given all resources that can be mobilized.
For the second question, judgment must be based upon the technical and scientific possibilities for finding a solution that eliminates the danger now and forever. We must guarantee the utmost safety for the wastes for hundreds of thousands of years in the future. Will society be able to build, operate and guard the necessary facilities? And how many of the approximately 30 countries embroiled in nuclear technology will be able to afford such costs? Perhaps most of the industrial countries, but not many third world countries. It is not realistic to think that the third world nations which presently struggle to meet their basic needs have the resources to set aside large sums of money for future nuclear waste programs. Despite this fact, the IAEA, Western atomic power companies (including ASEA-ATOM in Sweden) and other atomic industrial interests are making great efforts to supply more and more third world countries with nuclear power technology.
Are we capable of judging how the coming generations of human beings will react to the nuclear waste they inherit? The unknown aspects are so great that it is not morally acceptable to produce nuclear waste based upon the hope of future solutions. The question of whether more waste should be produced, i.e. if continued operation of nuclear power stations should be allowed, must be answered with a clear and unequivocal "No!".
-----------------
Give me a source and date and I'll consider reading it. It's interesting that you leave the reference out in this article but not your others. It mentions USSR which hasn't been around since 1993. Just make sure I won't find something to support my argument. And please make sure it addresses:
1. Limited space for nuclear waste
2. unsafe storage
...in modern times
1. Limited space for nuclear waste
2. unsafe storage
...in modern times
I simply posted the entire link so we wouldn't have anymore bull shit about me not reading the whole thing.
1. You never told me if you want fission or fusion as your preferred E=mc2
2. What storage? Nuclear waste is just sitting around waiting for some natural or man made disaster to spread it all over the place. Storage is what we don't got. But we will have lots of it tomorrow. We just need some trinkets to give to some drunken Indians and we'll have lots of useless land to drill in. Meanwhile we'll hold back on alternatives in every way we can so the people get hungry for nuclear as the only sane source of power. Keep the propaganda machine humming with the good book of nuclear power. Your kids don't deserve a world free from poison. Crap on their heads. It will make you feel real good.
OK, hes the question, lets say a container is a huge wreck and a large hole is torn in its side. Why is this such a huge disaster in your books? Explain what is going to happen to cause this (extremely unlikely) accident to somehow kill a large number of people?
Do you know what yucca mountain is?
Do you know what reprocessing is?
Do you know even the slightest bit about nuclear power?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 403
-
Facebook
Twitter