Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-04-28 23:26:06)
Waste disposal is turning into a far smaller problem by using breeder reactors. You still have long-lived waste, but it's not the truly dangerous materials like Iodine.Kmarion wrote:
Clearly you have never watched the Simpsons.
The primary reason is waste disposal and as mentioned "not in my backyard".
Yucca Mountain is a pretty good choice. You want something seismically inactive and far away from ground water sources. But the problem is, nothing man makes will last the 106 years that some of that waste is around for. The concern is essentially designating a no-man's land for the long term future.nukchebi0 wrote:
It always seemed to me that waste disposal is cited as big factor against it, when it really shouldn't be.
Can't we just find an isolated pot in the desert, create a giant cavern, coat said cavern with 15 feet of concrete and lead, treat the concrete/lead against water damage, and happily store waste?
What happens if something goes wrong and all that waste explodes in the upper atmosphere?nukchebi0 wrote:
Or what prevents us from disposing of it in space?
Last edited by SenorToenails (2008-04-28 23:29:16)
I see.SenorToenails wrote:
Yucca Mountain is a pretty good choice. You want something seismically inactive and far away from ground water sources. But the problem is, nothing man makes will last the 106 years that some of that waste is around for. The concern is essentially designating a no-man's land for the long term future.nukchebi0 wrote:
It always seemed to me that waste disposal is cited as big factor against it, when it really shouldn't be.
Can't we just find an isolated pot in the desert, create a giant cavern, coat said cavern with 15 feet of concrete and lead, treat the concrete/lead against water damage, and happily store waste?
I edited my post after I realized this. Thanks for pointing it out anyways.What happens if something goes wrong and all that waste explodes in the upper atmosphere?nukchebi0 wrote:
Or what prevents us from disposing of it in space?
What caused the word "nuclear" to have such fear in people. Is it a continuation, subconsciously, of Cold War mentality, or the results of successful exploitation by the myopic environmentalists?Reciprocity wrote:
The same reason people get an MRI and not an NMRI. The difference between a Magnetic Resonance Image and a Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Image? nothing. The word "nuclear" terrifies and confuses all the sheeple.
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-04-28 23:32:18)
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.nukchebi0 wrote:
What caused the word "nuclear" to have such fear in people.
Ugh...I see the whole solution to dirty power will be less simple than more nuclear plants.Kmarion wrote:
"In the US, where much of the world's uranium is enriched, including Australia's, the enrichment facility at Paducah, Kentucky, requires the electrical output of two 1000-megawatt coal-fired plants, which emit large quantities of carbon dioxide, the gas responsible for 50per cent of global warming."
..irony
http://snipurl.com/269sm
And by extension, the Cold War?SenorToenails wrote:
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.nukchebi0 wrote:
What caused the word "nuclear" to have such fear in people.
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-04-28 23:35:09)
An entire generation of people was raised to think the Soviets were going to vaporize the United States some time before or after recess.nukchebi0 wrote:
What caused the word "nuclear" to have such fear in people. Is it a continuation, subconsciously, of Cold War mentality, or the results of successful exploitation by the myopic environmentalists?Reciprocity wrote:
The same reason people get an MRI and not an NMRI. The difference between a Magnetic Resonance Image and a Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Image? nothing. The word "nuclear" terrifies and confuses all the sheeple.
I think that article ignores breeder reactors and using Thorium fuel.Kmarion wrote:
"In the US, where much of the world's uranium is enriched, including Australia's, the enrichment facility at Paducah, Kentucky, requires the electrical output of two 1000-megawatt coal-fired plants, which emit large quantities of carbon dioxide, the gas responsible for 50per cent of global warming."
..irony
http://snipurl.com/269sm
That too.Reciprocity wrote:
An entire generation of people was raised to think the Soviets were going to vaporize the United States some time before or after recess.
Yes, it is in fast breeders.nukchebi0 wrote:
As for the breeder reactors, don't they themselves give more fuel through the Pu-239?
We aren't there yet are we?SenorToenails wrote:
I think that article ignores breeder reactors and using Thorium fuel.Kmarion wrote:
"In the US, where much of the world's uranium is enriched, including Australia's, the enrichment facility at Paducah, Kentucky, requires the electrical output of two 1000-megawatt coal-fired plants, which emit large quantities of carbon dioxide, the gas responsible for 50per cent of global warming."
..irony
http://snipurl.com/269sm
Did you ever get to see the Trojan Nuclear Reactor in Rainier?nukchebi0 wrote:
I used to be addicted to this stuff in eight grade, but my memory is serving me much worse than it should it should be.
India is researching the use of Thorium fuel in thermal breeders, I believe. They have huge domestic amounts of Thorium, so they want to be self reliant on fuel.Kmarion wrote:
We aren't there yet are we?
No.Reciprocity wrote:
Did you ever get to see the Trojan Nuclear Reactor in Rainier?nukchebi0 wrote:
I used to be addicted to this stuff in eight grade, but my memory is serving me much worse than it should it should be.
I almost got to take a tour of Ginna Nuclear Plant, but the tour ended up being on the same day as an exam I had to take.nukchebi0 wrote:
Yes. I drove by it and saw it.
That sucks.SenorToenails wrote:
I almost got to take a tour of Ginna Nuclear Plant, but the tour ended up being on the same day as an exam I had to take.nukchebi0 wrote:
Yes. I drove by it and saw it.
