Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
MediaSight
13125 Followers
MediaSight
13125 Followers
Phoenix New Times
386 Followers
Phoenix New Times
386 Followers
lostngoneAug 11, 2010
Out of sight, out of mind.
milsorgnAug 11, 2010
Took that long to cap an oil well and yet we humans are so self assured of our mastery of all things "geological" that we'll persume:
1.) It'll stay there that long Or,
2.) Even if it does stay there that long won't invariably f**k something up down the line.
Nuclear is not a good option for much if any of the energy we need today and in the future. Why on earth would you want what is little more than a steam engine with immense potential problems when you can have the simplicity of a wind turbine? Or the non moving parts of solar collection. Why on earth would you ever think Nuclear is an option for all but the smallest of niches.
Also need I remind people that properly fissile materials are a _finite_ supply. Just like fossil fuels!
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jamestownfinestAug 11, 2010
<s>The Sun is a finite supply too. That ball of hot air is going to die out in about 5 billion years.
</s>
Buddy, we all know Nuclear ain't perfect...but its a whole helluva lot better than what we got now.
dteleAug 11, 2010
What, Chernoble?
Given what happened at Chernoble, along with reported meltdowns over the years at some first world establishments, don't you think that there are safer alternatives to nuclear power that are less destructive when accidents happen?
diggerlaterAug 11, 2010
Thie above is a completely uninformed and incorrect/ignorant post. Nuclear is presently the best option for the energy we need today. Wind and solar have large environmental impacts and they generate energy far from where it is used, leading to large transmission losses. It is actually wind and solar power that are more restricted in their use, and nuclear which is more widely applicable. Currently, nuclear is better for the environment and cheaper than any other power source. Without nuclear, our country cannot supply the energy demands of our future economy even ten years down the line without building many new coal and gasoline power plants and drastically increasing carbon footprint.
torrangeAug 11, 2010
I do not believe that milsorgn's comments are that uniformed/ignorant. your comments seem to be bought by the nuclear and power company lobbies.
You speak of transmission losses with solar. If I (and my state) had reliable solar collectors on our roofs, installed and maintained by the power company, we would not have to deal with transmission loses. We could generate electricity all day that could be distributed where it was needed. That investment seems to be more sound than the 38 billion we are being surcharged for a new reactor planned for 2020. There is so much tied up in infrastructure that they will do everything they can to hold onto the antiquated system.
I agree that nuclear is a better option than coal or gas, but not if it is at the expense of innovation. I believe that we can use some of the money slotted for nuclear and invest it in new cleaner technologies.
The cost of a new reactor is staggering and the profits by the construction companies is even more staggering. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
captininsanityAug 11, 2010
Nuclear fuel comes from the earth. In some areas there are naturally occurring "nuclear reactors". Of course you don't want the stuff to get in your ground water, but if the Egyptians could keep a mummy safe thousands of years surely we can keep a few barrels of nuclear waste locked away long enough. The big factor in this is quantity. There is very very little nuclear waste in the world. Even if all of our power was generated that way it wouldn't fill a warehouse in 100 years!
rjejazzAug 11, 2010
That's assuming the US revokes its ridiculous ban on nuclear waste recycling.
calthaerAug 11, 2010
Because Carter, being a peacenik, was concerned that it would lead to nuclear proliferation (since nuclear waste can possibly be turned into nuclear bombs). Now the US cannot re-process plutonium, and has to stick it in the ground or whatnot.
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/prez_policies/carter/carter_events.htm
Seeing less nuclear bombs in the world is a good thing, but this over-reaction just made things worse. Carter would have been better off advancing research on thorium-based nuclear reactors, which isn't also good for bombs.
http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2006/10/a-nuclear-reactor-in-every-home/
sirbetaAug 11, 2010
I'm sure it would be lovely to have no power on a no wind, cold night.
captininsanityAug 11, 2010
Thats why they put windfarms in windy areas, and solar plants in the dessert.
sirbetaAug 11, 2010
Are you trolling me, bro?
invictus125Aug 11, 2010
"Why on earth would you ever think Nuclear is an option for all but the smallest of niches."
...Because 20% of the United States' power is currently generated using nuclear plants?
invictus125Aug 11, 2010
Edit after deadline: Along with 80% of France's power. Seems to be working just fine, and with less waste generated than by fossil fuels.
doctechnicalAug 11, 2010
"Why on earth would you want what is little more than a vastly overcomplicated steam engine with immense potential problems when you can have the simplicity of a wind turbine?"
Because it's *dependable*. Because you can control the output and ramp it up as necessary.
In order for wind energy to be useful it has to have a backup source of power to step in when it can't produce enough juice. This is probably going to be either natural gas (gasp! A fossil fuel! Horrors!) or nuclear.
We know how to make safe, dependable nuclear reactors. As an American I am more than a little embarrassed that France and Japan are leaving us in the dust with this technology. If you really want to reduce carbon emissions, nuclear is a great way to go.
kmyeAug 11, 2010
(along with a lot of the above)
Because you can produce 2-3 GW with nuclear in the same geographical footprint you could produce 5-10 MW with wind?
Closed AccountAug 11, 2010
The last tree held nine drums!
lalongecarabineAug 11, 2010
I haven't read about this in years, but why aren't they making breeder reactors and reusing this stuff? When it's all rung dry so to speak it's a fraction of the volume.
doctechnicalAug 11, 2010
Because the US is full of Luddites. "Fire bad! Urrr!"
danj484Aug 11, 2010
They have a few of them, but fuel recycling will only get you so far until you have to dispose of non-fissile material that's still dangerous.
rjejazzAug 11, 2010
Fuel recycling allows for around 95% of nuclear waste to be recycled and reused in the reactor. Every nuclear reactor in the US has storage for around 40 years (the lifetime of the reactor) of nuclear waste without recycling. Some quick math shows roughly 800 years of storage space at the plant sites. This should be more than enough time to develop fusion, which will end the energy crisis.
Closed AccountAug 11, 2010
Plenty of time for us to kill ourselves for control over the resources too. Renewable energy should happen sooner then 800 years from now if we're to survive.
gsydiggerAug 11, 2010
so basically they're making landfills for radioactive materials?
landfills were a bad idea in the first place without radioactive material
gamerxr72Aug 11, 2010
Land fills aren't typically 490 meters deep.
dxworldAug 11, 2010
There is a big difference between a landfill where garbage is stacked to make a mountain on the surface of the earth and burying radioactive waste a kilometer below the surface in stable rock.
Opinions like that really point to the reason we can't get our act together here in the USA when it comes to stuff like that.
gsydiggerAug 11, 2010
it's still the same basis though, bury it to solve our troubles
I'm not saying there are better ways, but it's still a pretty poor way
Closed AccountAug 11, 2010
If there are no better ways, than this is the best way...
gamerxr72Aug 11, 2010
The same basis? Enjoy your logical fallacy.
jasoncoxAug 11, 2010
So let me get this straight, France can build a nuclear waste repository in the middle of the beautiful French countryside... and people here in America go bats**t when we try to build one under a mountain range in the middle of the fraking desert where no one lives?
You win this round France. And also, would you mind if we sent a couple hundred containment vessels your way? Please?
cheezinternAug 11, 2010
Not only that, it costs the French $1.3 billion to do it; Yucca Mountain was projected to hit $100 billion.
fcrowAug 11, 2010
Just dump on the moon or something, would be cool to see a bright green glow at night.
watchdragonAug 11, 2010
I thought the color of radiation was blue though
Closed AccountAug 12, 2010
Gamma radiation isn't in the visible spectrum.
No colour at all.
doctechnicalAug 11, 2010
...until the waste blows the moon out of orbit. This has been covered in the popular media :)
Closed AccountAug 11, 2010
I think you should write a strongly worded letter to where ever your read that.
doctechnicalAug 11, 2010
I'll rattle a note off to Gerry Anderson right away.
invictus125Aug 11, 2010
France is taking the right approach to this. It needs to be stored long-term any way you look at it. We do not currently have the technology to recycle the spent fuel with great efficiency, though we are working on it and the process is getting better. Even when fuel is recycled, the byproducts are radioactive for several hundred years (as opposed to the thousands that the spent fuel can maintain radioactivity). So, either we recycle it all and put the byproducts in the hole for a few hundred years, or the unused fuel stays down there for a few thousand.
Closed AccountAug 11, 2010
Aren't nuclear reactors supposed to be designed to keep using the residual energy from the waste indefinitely? Why are we suddenly reliant on a new type of landfill?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jgzmanAug 11, 2010
No, they aren't.
I believe that you are thinking of breeder reactors that can use the waste to produce power, lower volumes of less-radioactive waste, and weapons-grade fissile material.
That last is the catch. Too many people panic when they hear about it, and won't listen to reason.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.
Closed AccountAug 12, 2010
Breeder reactors, in fact, turn perfectly enrichable natural uranium and even spent LWR fuel into stuff absolutely useless for anything except...fuel for reactors.
It's because they are "blunt instruments" - they're designed to produce power - not weapons - and when they breed uranium, they breed lots of plutonium isotopes that aren't particularly explosive - but do things like produce neutrons (Pu-240 - a spontaneous neutron emitter - capable of pre-detonating any bomb built using that type of plutonium) - or heat up to high temperatures (Pu-238 - produces hundreds of watts per kilogram) - that makes making a bomb using bred fuel nearly impossible and totally impracticable.
Weapons require special reactors or large, long enrichment complexes. A weapons program has a very distinct signature that is not easy to confuse with a civilian power program.
jgzmanAug 12, 2010
Thanks for the clarification.
libertyprimeAug 11, 2010
I'm pretty sure the Nevada desert is like that, except it has both nuclear waste and a couple of hundred tons of the old atari 2600 E.T. games.
gamerxr72Aug 11, 2010
August 11, 2110:
France digs up 490 meter landfill to extract valuable nuclear material.
strupatnAug 11, 2010
I have a question about burying nuclear waste. It is my understanding it still makes heat for thousands of years right. If that is correct, why isn't it used to fuel lower output, more portable power generators? It seems like such a waste to bury or refrigerate the stuff.
ki77erbAug 11, 2010
A possible geothermal power source? I wonder why they dont do that. Thats a good question.
guacamolesanAug 11, 2010
Dude...490 meters under the surface that's kind of absurdly deep. I wonder if they'll come across any new surprising geological findings by accident.
danj484Aug 11, 2010
For a storage type structure yeah, though the average oil well is ~4x that deep
http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_welldep_s1_a.htm
zbeastAug 11, 2010
the reason why so deep is that it's below any type of natural water extraction.
it also put it out of the way of any future wars or stupid people trying to dig that stuff out.
Go France. The US need to get off there buts and build there own storage system
so they can grow their Nuclear power systems.
princednaAug 11, 2010
Can't we just launch the waste into space? or like a Volcano?
Like I don't want to sound like an idiot but can someone please explain why don't we use those two options? I know Volcano is stupid but I was just naming things. Why the frick can't we just send the crap into space?
Closed AccountAug 11, 2010
Imagine if the rocket went wrong and failed. Kaboom. Fall out everywhere. Not a good idea. It's hard enough to send men to space let alone loads of waste strapped to the back of huge fuel containers.
Also, when traveling to space, it costs a fortune. In space travel, every gram is taken into account. An extra bottle of water would literally cost thousands of dollars. It's because huge amounts of fuel are needed to get there. That also doesn't help the environment.
princednaAug 11, 2010
Okay can we just put it in the middle of Nevada and nuke it?
danj484Aug 11, 2010
Putting it into a volcano wouldn't do anything, the melting temperature of uranium dioxide is ~1500°C higher than magma.
slantyeyedAug 11, 2010
"France generates about 80% of its electricity from its 58 nuclear power plants, and is a world leader in the technology"
wow, why can't the US do that? you'd think nuclear power plants are the devil here in the US
megadan76Aug 11, 2010
Because the US is crippled by a NIMBY attitude, state governments who fight with the feds believing they are their own independent countries, and excess red tape, lobbyism, and general ignorance of safe environmental and energy policies.
pyrallisAug 11, 2010
So, the French approach is to use science, where the US approach was based on politics. If only every country based their actions on science.