When green energy harms the enviroment

[Creed of Heresy]

That's pretty much what I'm saying, Moros. I would rather see the old reactors torn down and replaced with new ones, personally.

[KichigaiNeko]

---

Well.

You are


I know that it is illegal here to do it per legislation from the EU parlament.
To be fair it was made to prohibit France from dumping it`s nuclear waste into the ocean.
Yet it prohibts dumping any kind of waste into the ocean on a state and corporate scale.

I'm busy doing PA/EA stuff ....,..

---

but will check on Australia's sewerage outflows and just exactly WTF we ARE pumping into our international waters.

Further to this line of scrutiny; I found this in my newsfeed

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/top-stor...6598952529

HOUSEHOLDS across Perth will soon be drinking recycled waste water.

WA will be the first state to drink recycled water when up to 35 billion litres of treated sewage is pumped into our underground supply each year under a plan to be ticked off by the Barnett Government.

The Sunday Times can reveal the Water Corporation will recommend within weeks that treated waste from showers, washing machines and toilets be re-used to drought-proof the state.

Encouraging I think.

As for waste 'Hard water' I don't think this is an issue here in WA

[The Grand Nudger]

You cannot equate one evil with another.
Sure nuclear energy doesnt cause waste that harms the climate.
And I am unaware of the waste which wind and solar causes.

Point is, nuclear energy is not an alternative to fossil fuels because it produces nuclear waste and has proven to have catastophic consequences when accidents occure.

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.

Plus. To simply "keep it cold and dry" is not "simple".

Dry and deep, dry and deep...and it is actually pretty simple.

The ground is a constantly moving and not always dry thing.
Adding to that, one has to store the waste for a million year.

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.

Maybe big numbers have turned to seem little with todays value of money and ecetera, but let me make it clear: A million years is a long time!
Who will pay the costs of storing the stuff? who will give the guarantee of safety? where can it be stored safely and if nowhere how can it be put out of storage and repositioned?

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).

Do you have any idea what a logistical mastery that would require?
Not to mention the enormous amounts of money one would need to spend.

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.

And who would pay that money? The energy companies? - Do you even believe that these will exist for the upcoming 1 000 000 years???

Nope, nuclear power is simply not worth the risk.

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.

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.

---

You did raise an interesting point, there... perhaps unknowingly.
Transport of radioactive material from reactor to waste processing facility is probably the most hazardous moment for these materials.
Leaks are more probable, because mobile containers are less efficient than buildings with tons and tons of concrete.
Theft is a possibility, that's why these transport vessels have a lot of police escort.... but even so, they're still a juicy target.
Ol'fashioned terrorism - it's much simpler to blow up a truck on the road than a heavily guarded building.

Not actually much of a problem. I'll try to find an old DOE clip showing two containment/transport cars colliding (simulating a head on rail collision at max speed) without damaging the containment units. They already thought of that...hehehehe.

[Something completely different]

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

[Autumnlicious]

Risk is only high because we insist on investing in old technologies.

We have wonderful researchers, wonderful institutions and a legacy of inventiveness.

Nuclear alone has objectively better solutions that are close to risk free, if we use them.

The enemy of the people is greed and the unwillingness to invest in newer, better solutions.

Not any single energy source alone.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

We could talk about cost, sure. I thought we were comparing waste, waste is one component (often overlooked) of cost..of course.

It sounds simple, if one forgets that the earth under us is everything but static.

No, it's simple mostly because we know that it isn't, if we didn't, we wouldn't know to make provisions for such activity.

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?

That's not a requirement for waste disposal. See above.

the operators - company - not capable of giving a million year guarantee

Probably not, but why would it matter if this were the case. It's already been explained to you that you're working with an inflated number - but to be fair- the actual number is still large, and I doubt that any agency is capable of making such a garuantee, but whomever takes control or responsibility it will be up to them to maintain. It is a continuing chain of responsibility (like most things), and if someone in the future bitches about those responsibilities o-kay........but they'll have to acknowledge that without power of some kind they wouldn't be around to bitch.

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?

Yep, like public access to quality drinking water. We already pay fees related to the disposal and storage of nuclear waste (even though we aren't actually engaging in it). Shitty eh?

Can you show me something that mankind has undergone as a project which has lasted for 10 000 - 1 000 000 years?

Language, social structure, tool making, agriculture. Other examples but you get the gist. Really important stuff, I think energy qualifies as "really important stuff".

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.

Well, certain segments of our representatives fault, yes. The bill and subsequent contracts were signed in 1982 and 87. I'm not spouting out any 50's optimism, I'm being realistic about this and mentioning where development and cash flow went and why. I keep getting herp derps in return.

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.

A great many unexpected things were hedged against, including the event that knocked out the backup generators, I've already mentioned this- and this is old tech on top of that.... Don't even start in on casualties or I'll start to talk about rolling worldwide blackouts due to insufficient power generation, and the effects of increased consumption of fossil fuels. Again, nuclear power - even when we consider the disasters- has a very good track record, especially relative to our other fuel sources. Granted, other power sources have a head start on nuclear, and maybe with enough time it would meet and exceed their respective death tolls - but I'm not much of a fortune teller so I'll leave that to the wondering.

---

On a related note, if we could just build a better damned battery my tune would probably change drastically. Energy is produced "on demand". We currently lack the ability to store energy in the quantities required that - if this were not the case- would make a massive slew of alternatives at least equal to nuclear and fossil fuels in most applications if not preferable.

[Creed of Heresy]

sooo all I wrote in those posts addressing these issues, nobody's gonna actually reply to, eh? Alright then. ._.

[KichigaiNeko]

Sorry CoH. But I felt you covered the points rather well?