(August 10, 2021 at 9:19 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(August 9, 2021 at 12:41 pm)Spongebob Wrote: I don't see human behavior changing nearly fast enough to affect the current climate crisis.  

It's not about changing people's habits, but politicians doing something. For instance, Nye is talking about new nuclear energy (fusion) and how it could solve all the pollution problems and then some.

So maybe world leaders could organize something like a global Manhattan-like project in which top scientists would hurriedly work on developing new nuclear generators. Nye is talking about fusion, but maybe they could first work on simpler forms of nuclear energy like thorium reactors.

As if there should be some new Ministry, like Ministry for the Future.

Yeah, that's what I was implying, human behavior on the whole as it relates to our usage of energy.  We as individuals have the power to choose some forms of energy that are less carbon-intensive than others, such as installing solar panels or driving an electric car.  We also have full control of who we vote for and what political agendas our government espouses.  But as everyone here knows, a large portion of American voters perceive climate change as nothing but a hoax, so nothing will change as long as that is true.

There are several teams working on nuclear fusion generators around the world and they are making progress, but it is elusive and the technical challenges are not trivial.  There have been cleaner, more efficient fission reactor designs for decades now and the only thing slowing down the building of these new reactors is political will.  I see more news articles of people complaining about the shutting of old coal plants than I do of new nuclear plants.  The US hasn't built a new fission plant in 30 years, but there are two new ones under construction in Georgia.  This just isn't fast enough.  Every state should have at least one new fission facility under construction.

(August 10, 2021 at 10:55 am)Spongebob Wrote:

(August 10, 2021 at 9:19 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: It's not about changing people's habits, but politicians doing something. For instance, Nye is talking about new nuclear energy (fusion) and how it could solve all the pollution problems and then some.

So maybe world leaders could organize something like a global Manhattan-like project in which top scientists would hurriedly work on developing new nuclear generators. Nye is talking about fusion, but maybe they could first work on simpler forms of nuclear energy like thorium reactors.

As if there should be some new Ministry, like Ministry for the Future.

Yeah, that's what I was implying, human behavior on the whole as it relates to our usage of energy.  We as individuals have the power to choose some forms of energy that are less carbon-intensive than others, such as installing solar panels or driving an electric car.  We also have full control of who we vote for and what political agendas our government espouses.  But as everyone here knows, a large portion of American voters perceive climate change as nothing but a hoax, so nothing will change as long as that is true.

There are several teams working on nuclear fusion generators around the world and they are making progress, but it is elusive and the technical challenges are not trivial.  There have been cleaner, more efficient fission reactor designs for decades now and the only thing slowing down the building of these new reactors is political will.  I see more news articles of people complaining about the shutting of old coal plants than I do of new nuclear plants.  The US hasn't built a new fission plant in 30 years, but there are two new ones under construction in Georgia.  This just isn't fast enough.  Every state should have at least one new fission facility under construction.

Only if we can bury all the waste in the ground next to whereever you get your water.....

(July 4, 2021 at 11:14 pm)WinterHold Wrote:

(July 4, 2021 at 6:00 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: You said earlier that people can't be trusted with pills or condoms. What makes you think these same people will abide by a contract?

Boru

Contracts are more efficient and stronger in nature. Even countries and states abide to contracts that include penalties on breaking the conditions agreed on.

A third unbiased party - like a government- will keep the the contract's laws active .

Because that worked out so well in the People’s Republic of China.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

At work.

(August 10, 2021 at 11:10 am)onlinebiker Wrote:

(August 10, 2021 at 10:55 am)Spongebob Wrote: Yeah, that's what I was implying, human behavior on the whole as it relates to our usage of energy.  We as individuals have the power to choose some forms of energy that are less carbon-intensive than others, such as installing solar panels or driving an electric car.  We also have full control of who we vote for and what political agendas our government espouses.  But as everyone here knows, a large portion of American voters perceive climate change as nothing but a hoax, so nothing will change as long as that is true.

There are several teams working on nuclear fusion generators around the world and they are making progress, but it is elusive and the technical challenges are not trivial.  There have been cleaner, more efficient fission reactor designs for decades now and the only thing slowing down the building of these new reactors is political will.  I see more news articles of people complaining about the shutting of old coal plants than I do of new nuclear plants.  The US hasn't built a new fission plant in 30 years, but there are two new ones under construction in Georgia.  This just isn't fast enough.  Every state should have at least one new fission facility under construction.

Only if we can bury all the waste in the ground next to whereever you get your water.....

Actually you seal it back up in 'Syn-rock' and put it back in ths hole from whence you dug it from.

It's nuclear physics not rocket science for crying out loud.

(August 10, 2021 at 11:39 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.

(August 10, 2021 at 11:10 am)onlinebiker Wrote: Only if we can bury all the waste in the ground next to whereever you get your water.....

Actually you seal it back up in 'Syn-rock' and put it back in ths hole from whence you dug it from.

It's nuclear physics not rocket science for crying out loud.

This sort of ignorant comment is not uncommon.  Yes, nuclear reactors produce dangerous waste, but so do coal plants, way, way, way more waste.  And coal plant waste isn't bottled up and contained.  Far, by orders of magnitude, more waste has been produced and widely distributed from burning fossil fuels than all nuclear plants combined, and that includes the few that have failed.  The science on this is definitive.  I'm currently working on a project to clean up all the solid waste from an old coal plant.  It's going to take years for this single plant and 10 of millions of $$.  Some dildos believe fossil fuel is clean and safe; little do they know.

(August 10, 2021 at 11:49 am)Spongebob Wrote:

(August 10, 2021 at 11:39 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.


Actually you seal it back up in 'Syn-rock' and put it back in ths hole from whence you dug it from.

It's nuclear physics not rocket science for crying out loud.

This sort of ignorant comment is not uncommon.  Yes, nuclear reactors produce dangerous waste, but so do coal plants, way, way, way more waste.  And coal plant waste isn't bottled up and contained.  Far, by orders of magnitude, more waste has been produced and widely distributed from burning fossil fuels than all nuclear plants combined, and that includes the few that have failed.  The science on this is definitive.  I'm currently working on a project to clean up all the solid waste from an old coal plant.  It's going to take years for this single plant and 10 of millions of $$.  Some dildos believe fossil fuel is clean and safe; little do they know.

Stuff it you know -nothing.....

Palisades Nuclear - sitting right on Lake Michigan has every ounce of waste it ever produced SITTING RIGHT ON SITE.

There has never been a plan to move it somewhere else - as it isn' t cost effective. The shit will sit there till it' s containment goes to shit - then it can turn the largest body of fresh water we have into an undrinkable radioactive sludge pond. 

You' re just happy to shit all over future generations so you can have cheap juice now...... "Let the grandkids deal with it" is your motto.....

(August 10, 2021 at 12:17 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Stuff it you know -nothing.....

Palisades Nuclear - sitting right on Lake Michigan has every ounce of waste it ever produced SITTING RIGHT ON SITE.

There has never been a plan to move it somewhere else - as it isn' t cost effective. The shit will sit there till it' s containment goes to shit - then it can turn the largest body of fresh water we have into an undrinkable radioactive sludge pond. 

You' re just happy to shit all over future generations so you can have cheap juice now...... "Let the grandkids deal with it" is your motto.....

More ignorance.  

Yes, the waste is sitting right there, doing absolutely nothing.  It's contained.  It isn't harming the environment.  Not a permanent solution, but still much better than what we do with coal.  I'm currently cleaning up a giant poison lake.  There have been many disasters at fossil fuel facilities, but ignorant people ignore them.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a...ear/72814/

The primary reason nuclear waste has not been moved to a "permanent" storage place has very little to do with costs and there most certainly are designs for permanent storage.  The issue is just as you stated, no one wants it in their back yard.  Plans have been put on hold not because they are too costly or not viable, but because ignorant and fearful people won't accept them in their state despite their state benefitting from nuclear power.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc...th/537894/

We are already shitting on this generation, the last generation and future generations, with fossil fuels.  Fortunately, we were able to solve some past catastrophes, like acid rain.  Yeah, that wasn't cheap.  But compared to carbon emissions it was nothing.  Future generations will curse us for our selfishness.

(August 10, 2021 at 12:46 pm)Spongebob Wrote:

(August 10, 2021 at 12:17 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Stuff it you know -nothing.....

Palisades Nuclear - sitting right on Lake Michigan has every ounce of waste it ever produced SITTING RIGHT ON SITE.

There has never been a plan to move it somewhere else - as it isn' t cost effective. The shit will sit there till it' s containment goes to shit - then it can turn the largest body of fresh water we have into an undrinkable radioactive sludge pond. 

You' re just happy to shit all over future generations so you can have cheap juice now...... "Let the grandkids deal with it" is your motto.....

More ignorance.  

Yes, the waste is sitting right there, doing absolutely nothing.  It's contained.  It isn't harming the environment.  Not a permanent solution, but still much better than what we do with coal.  I'm currently cleaning up a giant poison lake.  There have been many disasters at fossil fuel facilities, but ignorant people ignore them.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a...ear/72814/

The primary reason nuclear waste has not been moved to a "permanent" storage place has very little to do with costs and there most certainly are designs for permanent storage.  The issue is just as you stated, no one wants it in their back yard.  Plans have been put on hold not because they are too costly or not viable, but because ignorant and fearful people won't accept them in their state despite their state benefitting from nuclear power.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc...th/537894/

We are already shitting on this generation, the last generation and future generations, with fossil fuels.  Fortunately, we were able to solve some past catastrophes, like acid rain.  Yeah, that wasn't cheap.  But compared to carbon emissions it was nothing.  Future generations will curse us for our selfishness.

You just don' t fucking get it.

The shit stored there will be highly radioactive LONG after the reactor is decommissioned - like 10,000 years and Entergy (the current owners - it was sold in 2007) isbankrupt and non- exustance.....


The storage facility MIGHT last 50 years after it is abandoned - but probably not even that. Radiation does weird shit to materials - think rust on steroids....The containment facility the shit is in simply not designed or intended for long term storage.... It also continues to accumulate.

NIMBYISM does play into building long term storage - but it is minor. Ever heard of imminent domain? If we want to put a nuclear disposal site under your house the government can do it. Not a problem.


What IS a problem is moving the shit.

How are you going to do that - and make it 99.99999% safe? How much firepower are you going to provide to prevent terrorists from stealing it - or just blowing it up to form a monster dirty bomb?

Ever hear of traffic accidents? Give it time - and it WILL happen. I waited for years to see a semi load of fireworks go off - and we got one a fejw years back on I-94. Pretty spectacular.

They' re nervous enough about that with the shit sitting where it is.

(August 10, 2021 at 3:11 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: You just don' t fucking get it.

The shit stored there will be highly radioactive LONG after the reactor is decommissioned - like 10,000 years and Entergy (the current owners - it was sold in 2007) isbankrupt and non- exustance.....


The storage facility MIGHT last 50 years after it is abandoned - but probably not even that. Radiation does weird shit to materials - think rust on steroids....The containment facility the shit is in simply not designed or intended for long term storage.... It also continues to accumulate.

NIMBYISM does play into building long term storage - but it is minor. Ever heard of imminent domain? If we want to put a nuclear disposal site under your house the government can do it. Not a problem.


What IS a problem is moving the shit.

How are you going to do that - and make it 99.99999% safe? How much firepower are you going to provide to prevent terrorists from stealing it - or just blowing it up to form a monster dirty bomb?

Ever hear of traffic accidents? Give it time - and it WILL happen. I waited for years to see a semi load of fireworks go off - and we got one a fejw years back on I-94. Pretty spectacular.

They' re nervous enough about that with the shit sitting where it is.

I'm not making light of your points, OLB, they are all valid, but you seem misinformed, or just ignorant.

I don't know what you think is so difficult to comprehend.  There are numerous design plans to make it safe for long term storage.  Current fission technologies can even recycle some of that material into a more stable form.  The plans to store it are in locations where no one will be going.  Of course this precludes the disruption of the locations by things like meteor strikes or massive earthquakes or volcanoes.  Of course those things have a way of destroying life on a massive scale anyway.  But yes, of course long term considerations are included.

There have been several plans to store the material under mountains and such but the states have fought it hard.  Perhaps the feds could force a state to take it but maybe they are not willing to accept the political fallout; I don't really know.  I also don't know why you are ranting about this but seem so uninformed.  I remember reading about all of this stuff when I was a teenager, 40 year ago!  I subscribed to several scientific journals and this wasn't news even then.

I'm also not ignoring your argument about moving the waste, but you are being very selective here.  We move nuclear material around all the time; how do you think it gets to the plants???  We move all sorts of dangerous stuff by plane, train, automobile and ship all the freakin time.  Where's your outrage about that?  By volume or mass, the danger of petroleum spills/explosions is far greater than nuclear because we move/handle so damn much of it.  And we lose control of it a lot, but it rarely makes the news unless it's big enough to fill the Gulf of Mexico.  If it were possible, I'd say we shouldn't use any form of energy that causes long lasting problems and that would include fossil fuels and nuclear fission.  But we live in reality and our current global civilization demands energy.  At present we can only supply a small amount of that energy through safe, renewable sources.  My position on this is both rational and reasonable.  We are and should be maximizing safe forms of energy while filling the needs with what we have while better technologies are being developed.  Nuclear fission is objectively safer than fossil fuels.  Pretty much every hippie but you now understands that.  And don't even get me started on environmentalism.  Society currently does so many things foolishly that could be done cleaner, more efficiently and better, but political will and ignorance prevents it.

If you are truly concerned about things like dirty bombs then I suggest you don't allow yourself to even think about all the other counties that have nuclear plants and weapons, especially the really crappy ones like Russia and India.  Anyone willing and interested in doing this would find it far easier to steal material from those countries.

(August 10, 2021 at 12:17 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(August 10, 2021 at 11:49 am)Spongebob Wrote: This sort of ignorant comment is not uncommon.  Yes, nuclear reactors produce dangerous waste, but so do coal plants, way, way, way more waste.  And coal plant waste isn't bottled up and contained.  Far, by orders of magnitude, more waste has been produced and widely distributed from burning fossil fuels than all nuclear plants combined, and that includes the few that have failed.  The science on this is definitive.  I'm currently working on a project to clean up all the solid waste from an old coal plant.  It's going to take years for this single plant and 10 of millions of $$.  Some dildos believe fossil fuel is clean and safe; little do they know.

Stuff it you know -nothing.....

Palisades Nuclear - sitting right on Lake Michigan has every ounce of waste it ever produced SITTING RIGHT ON SITE.

There has never been a plan to move it somewhere else - as it isn' t cost effective. The shit will sit there till it' s containment goes to shit - then it can turn the largest body of fresh water we have into an undrinkable radioactive sludge pond. 

You' re just happy to shit all over future generations so you can have cheap juice now...... "Let the grandkids deal with it" is your motto.....

*Reads OnlineBiker's post*

Okay... how to begin...

Your reply is innitially of a specific case. In a particular country, state, etc.

You do realise that the very 'Anti-nuke' sentiments you're espousing are pretty much the exact reason that said material simply isn't allowed to move about, right?

That people don't want ships to be built to carry large amounts of said waste, not trains, nor trucks etc such that said waste could indeed be moved from where it's produced to facilities that could render it into a safe storage medium?

It's the very same reason that kept the (Relativly) ancient Fukashima plant running well past its decomission date because people wouldn't allow for said material to be moved to some where else for storgae/disposal. The very same sentiments that prevented a more modern and disaster resistant plant from being built.


Then you talk about 'Cost effectivness'. Such costs can be worked into the plants actual innitial building estimates. Such costs are already high but the need for energy simply out weighs said effects.

You then swerve into a strange tangent and aspertion casting about what others want cheaply at the expense of others... While kind of ignoring the vbery acts of the oil and coal producers very actions to keep their products in exactly said state.

I'm, personally, not sure where to start a conversation on the matter with yourself OnlineBiker.

Help me out here.

Cheers.

Not at work.