(March 18, 2013 at 12:19 am)Rhythm Wrote: Not equating, simply comparing based upon the yardstick of waste. Solar and wind both have associated wastes. Manufacturing processes/materials could improve though and that would alleviate the issues either has. Nuclear is absolutely an alternative, in the same way that bajillions of hamsters in wheels is an alternative - my money goes on the nukes, if fossil fuels, hamsters, and nuclear are our choices.
I doubt that the manufacturing and transportation of the fuel rods required for nuclear power plants are cheaper than the manufacturing of solar panels and wind turbines.
Quote:Dry and deep, dry and deep...and it is actually pretty simple.
It sounds simple, if one forgets that the earth under us is everything but static.
Quote:True, but in alot of places it moves very, very slowly and -is- always dry. Technically it only had to be stored under watch for abut 10,00 years, after that a dose from a waste facility would be smaller than the dose from an x-ray - even if the facility were compromised.
And do you know a place on the planet in which the underground hasnt seen any kind of geological activity for 10 000 - 1 000 000 years?
Quote:A million years -is- a long time....... We, the users of said technology would pay for it. The operators of the facility combined with all appropriate overseeing agencies would give this "guarantee" - same as any other waste disposal or treatment area...same as our drinking water, etc etc etc. It can be stored in purpose built facilities (Yucca for example), you move it (in case of some unforeseen emergency) the same way you got it to the site (rail and truck).
the operators - company - not capable of giving a million year guarantee
overseeing agencies - the state - meaning that everyone would have to pay for occassional safe depositry and the repeating transportation cicles for 10 000 - 1000 000 years.
Is that really something worth advocating?
Quote:It's impressive, don't get me wrong, but we've done much, much more complicated things - and sometimes we spend even more on shit that isn't complicated or really all that difficult in the first place.
Can you show me something that mankind has undergone as a project which has lasted for 10 000 - 1 000 000 years?
Quote:We're (The US) actually paying those energy companies a great dea of money right now because we failed to meet the conditions of a contract we signed to take the waste and store it at the site we (mostly) built until it was de-funded........ To add insult to injury, almost immediately after it's politically motivated defunding, our government began to express how seriously we needed to "find" a place to dispose of our nuclear waste, motherfuckers.
your goverment sown fault. Kinf of seemend obvious that the naiv optimism sourrounding nuclear energy in the 50s woud hve some negative sideeffects. If that contract was signed in the 50s.
Quote:What risk, again, from all the way up top, the risks of other power sources are pretty well known. Fossil fuel "aint worth it", neither are solar or wind in their current forms. What's this shadowy and nebulous risk that follows nuclear power wherever it goes? It's not like they're setting off bombs next door.
Are you sure? No one expected Fukushima to go up in smoke?
It is the unexpected things one should be worried about, and when a risk is simply to high to take because the casualties would be to many - then one shouldnt take that risk.
