oilfreeandhappy wrote:Regarding reprocessing:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international ... processing
"No matter from which angle you look at reprocessing it is illogical. It's expensive, produces useless materials, releases vast quantities of waste into the environment, increases the total volume of waste, and increases nuclear proliferation risks. "
"One of the most controversial issues with reprocessing facilities is their daily discharge of huge quantities of radioactive liquid waste into the sea and radioactive discharges into the air. The Sellafield and La Hague facilities are the biggest source of radioactive pollution in the Europe. The radioactive contamination in the sea can be traced as far as the Arctic and eastern Canada."
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada wrote:oilfreeandhappy wrote:Regarding reprocessing:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international ... processing
"No matter from which angle you look at reprocessing it is illogical. It's expensive, produces useless materials, releases vast quantities of waste into the environment, increases the total volume of waste, and increases nuclear proliferation risks. "
"One of the most controversial issues with reprocessing facilities is their daily discharge of huge quantities of radioactive liquid waste into the sea and radioactive discharges into the air. The Sellafield and La Hague facilities are the biggest source of radioactive pollution in the Europe. The radioactive contamination in the sea can be traced as far as the Arctic and eastern Canada."
That has been the view of Greenpeace and Jimmy Carter from day 1. Pointless propaganda battles aside reprocessing is and will continue to happen for the forseeable future, and the dumping in the sea of waste is something only stupid people do. That same waste liquid can be easily evaporated into solids and refined.
grabby wrote:radiation is essentially forever.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
oilfreeandhappy wrote:I'd say Jimmy Carter was fairly qualified. He spent his Naval career on nuclear submarine. I'm sure if it were "easy", it would be done correctly. To me, "propaganda" is the false security statements that this industry wants us to buy.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Engineering decisons are not always made by engineers.ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:...
Nuclear waste isn't a problem because of the actual waste, its a problem because tree-huggers don't think it ever should have been created in the first place, for any reason.
...
cube wrote:Engineering decisons are not always made by engineers.ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:...
Nuclear waste isn't a problem because of the actual waste, its a problem because tree-huggers don't think it ever should have been created in the first place, for any reason.
...
Especially in the area of civil engineering where public works projects are concerned, they are quite often determined by political reasons.
Nuclear waste can actually be stored at ground level quite easily and cheaply. The ONLY reason why there is mandate to bury it way deep is pure politics.
As for the tree huggers, don't worry about them. Once PO hits and the "standard of living" that they have grown accustomed to, goes downhill....they'll give up their silly ideas.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Why is nuclear waste disposal so hard?
oilfreeandhappy wrote:"No matter from which angle you look at reprocessing it is illogical. It's expensive, produces useless materials, releases vast quantities of waste into the environment, increases the total volume of waste, and increases nuclear proliferation risks. "
Nuclear waste can actually be stored at ground level quite easily and cheaply. The ONLY reason why there is mandate to bury it way deep is pure politics.
As for the tree huggers, don't worry about them. Once PO hits and the "standard of living" that they have grown accustomed to, goes downhill....they'll give up their silly ideas.
nero wrote:Nuclear waste disposal is hard because, once you've baked a radioactive hot potato, most people are smart enough not to want to take it off your hands.
The nuclear industry has to get away from the idea of ever being able to dispose of their waste. They will have to manage their waste for the next million years. So what is the best way they should manage their waste? For the Canadian industry, placing it in a deep mine in the geologically stable candian shield makes good sense. It makes even better sense if you have some fear that the nuclear industry might not be around for the next million years.
Placing the waste in a deep geological repository does not preclude you from retrieving and reprocessing it at some later date if that makes sense. But it is prudent for long term storage to be taken to a remote sight which is unlikely to be disturbed if the active human management disappears. We don't want some nincompoop going down in their pickup and plundering the nuclear waste if ever "stuff happens"
If we assmune that the ultimate fate of all civilizations is to collapse then yes the "active human management" part will eventually disappear.nero wrote:....
Placing the waste in a deep geological repository does not preclude you from retrieving and reprocessing it at some later date if that makes sense. But it is prudent for long term storage to be taken to a remote sight which is unlikely to be disturbed if the active human management disappears. We don't want some nincompoop going down in their pickup and plundering the nuclear waste if ever "stuff happens"
cube wrote:However in the initial stages of waste disposal..there is much heat generated by the "radioactive hot potato". It would be MUCH easier to place the waste above ground level for several decades to dissipate the heat then bury it deep. If the decision was made purely by engineers and not politicians then we'd have such a system. In fact if energy production in general was decided purely by engineers we'd probably go all nuclear and give up on coal.
If we assume that the ultimate fate of all civilizations is to collapse then yes the "active human management" part will eventually disappear.
I firmly belive that in the long run...nuclear power will win out, simply because it will be the only option. When cheap fossil fuel energy runs out society will learn that windmills and solar panels cannot provide you with a 21st century "standard of living".
zoidberg wrote:Its good to hear a self confessed tree hugger saying it makes sense to dump, err safely place, it in the Shield. I was wondering if there was maybe some reason to fear it leaking into the water supply or something.
*silly grin*nero wrote:...
While nuclear energy is theoretically quite attractive, the current paradigm of large expensive nuclear plants creates a power system that is fragile. In the longer run I think distributed power systems that don't rely on any large remote power sources for a large percentage of the power will be found to be more reliable and capable of adapting to disruptions.
...
new scientist wrote:There is a 50% chance of a major accident while the US government attempts to clean up its dirtiest nuclear site over the next three decades, a new study concludes.
He also highlights numerous other risks, including the potential build-up of flammable gases in Hanford's underground storage tanks. In October 2003, one tank was discovered to contain sufficient concentrations hydrogen to burn
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6199
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests