NationStates Jolt Archive

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/25/gop-like-france-us-should-embrace-nuclear-energy/

“So you’d think that if Democrats want to talk about energy and climate change and clean air, they’d put American-made nuclear power front and center. … We say find more American energy and use less … and one place to start is with 100 more nuclear plants," he said.

Obama's FY 2009 budget, however, promotes nuclear energy development. According to the Department of Energy, the budget includes the licensing of new nuclear plants and additional research into the nuclear fuel cycle.

In addition: $242 million is allocated for Nuclear Power 2010, "an industry cost-shared effort to bring new nuclear plant technologies to market and demonstrate streamlined regulatory processes."

“So you’d think that if Democrats want to talk about energy and climate change and clean air, they’d put American-made nuclear power front and center. Instead, their answer is billions in subsidies for renewable energy from the sun, the wind and the earth.

Is Senator Lamar Alexander brain damaged or am I? :confused:

I'm in favor of nuclear power. Does that make me nuclear brain damaged?

EDIT: Or do I not understand the post?

Wait. I read all of that, and there's something in there somewhere, but it's 5:33 am here. Can you clarify that in your own words so I can have a hope of understanding what was being said?

I'm in favor of nuclear power. Does that make me nuclear brain damaged?

EDIT: Or do I not understand the post?

I'm trying to figure out an exchange like this:

Republicans: "Democrats don't want more nuclear power plants!'

Democrats: "Yes we do. We expanded funding to build more nuclear power plants."

Republicans: "Democrats don't want more nuclear power plants!"

To make a fair critique of the senators remarks lets see how much Obama spent on Wind Solar and Geo thermal (which is guess is what he meant form the earth).

Is Senator Lamar Alexander brain damaged or am I? :confused:
I'm afraid he isn't. Nuclear power makes the most sense for US - the most scientifically advanced nation in the world. It may be seen as costly, but actually is cheaper than everything else except the most simple and dirty coal plants, and what's best, the cost is from science and engineering, i.e. the money gets to advance the country and is re-spent more than otherwise.

Admittedly, though, US has enough desert area to seriously consider solar collectors with boilers. Not the PV cells, they're silly, but just using the heat. But it's still just for the day.

To make a fair critique of the senators remarks lets see how much Obama spent on Wind Solar and Geo thermal (which is guess is what he meant form the earth).

I don't see how encouraging the expanding of wind, solar or any other type of energy has to mean discouraging nuclear energy or vice-versa.

I'm afraid he isn't. Nuclear power makes the most sense for US - the most scientifically advanced nation in the world. It may be seen as costly, but actually is cheaper than everything else except the most simple and dirty coal plants, and what's best, the cost is from science and engineering, i.e. the money gets to advance the country and is re-spent more than otherwise.

Admittedly, though, US has enough desert area to seriously consider solar collectors with boilers. Not the PV cells, they're silly, but just using the heat. But it's still just for the day.

I agree that nuclear energy is a resource that should be expanded, but If you're saying it's the only resource that should be expanded then I disagree with that.

I'm trying to figure out an exchange like this:

Republicans: "Democrats don't want more nuclear power plants!'

Democrats: "Yes we do. We expanded funding to build more nuclear power plants."

Republicans: "Democrats don't want more nuclear power plants!"

That's what I thought was being said. Thanks. :) I think he's definitely damaged in the head. He IS a republican after all. :D

I don't see how encouraging the expanding of wind, solar or any other type of energy has to mean discouraging nuclear energy or vice-versa.

The front and center comment of the first one suggest that he feels nuclear should receive the lions share of funding.
So if the budget gives nuclear only 242 million and gives solar/wind/ geothermal several billion I can see where he is coming form.
Nuclear is something that can produce clean energy now.
Wind solar etc is still under development.

The front and center comment of the first one suggest that he feels nuclear should receive the lions share of funding.
So if the budget gives nuclear only 242 million and gives solar/wind/ geothermal several billion I can see where he is coming form.
Nuclear is something that can produce clean energy now.
Wind solar etc is still under development.

Which is exactly why wind, solar etc. deserves more money.

I agree that nuclear energy is a resource that should be expanded, but If you're saying it's the only resource that should be expanded then I disagree with that.
It's the primary resource. Wind and solar won't get noticeably better over time, they have pretty much reached their top, unless miracle cheap PV get invented. Nuclear will.

Wind and solar won't get noticeably better over time, they have pretty much reached their top, unless miracle cheap PV get invented.

Prove it.

Which is exactly why wind, solar etc. deserves more money.

I can see that logic but I think it can be harmful to paint these measures as golden (silver? whatever.) bullets. the cost of developing and implementing them is huge compared to the perfectly good solution we already have. I think the most sensible option would be to eliminate our dependence on harmful polluting fuels as soon as possible, and we can do so -quickest and cheapest- with nuclear. After that perhaps it would be smart at looking at expanding our capability with renewables such as wind and solar.

Which is exactly why wind, solar etc. deserves more money.

That seems to be where the senator disagrees with you.
I am of the mind set, lets get clean energy now with nuclear. And then as the alternatives become cost effective, use those to cover growing energy needs.
That pretty much what France has been doing.

Prove it.
Prove the Earth is round.

I can see that logic but I think it can be harmful to paint these measures as golden (silver? whatever.) bullets. the cost of developing and implementing them is huge compared to the perfectly good solution we already have. I think the most sensible option would be to eliminate our dependence on harmful polluting fuels as soon as possible, and we can do so -quickest and cheapest- with nuclear. After that perhaps it would be smart at looking at expanding our capability with renewables such as wind and solar.

That seems to be where the senator disagrees with you.
I am of the mind set, lets get clean energy now with nuclear. And then as the alternatives become cost effective, use those to cover growing energy needs.
That pretty much what France has been doing.

The thing is, all these forms of energy have their advantages and disadvantages. Nuclear energy is profitable for the companies that build nuclear power plants so it shouldn't take much encouragement from the government to build more; merely fewer roadblocks. But nuclear power plants don't last forever. In thirty or forty years, the plants have to be decommissioned. The land they are on becomes effectively useless. A fair amount of land also. I can't help but wonder what France plans to do in thirty years.

On the other hand, solar even with today's technology has reached grid parity in remote locations like Hawaii. It's predicted that it will reach grid parity in much of the US by 2015. In addition, Solar has the advantage of using land that's already in use: rooftops, parking lots and one state(Oregon I believe) is testing a photovoltaic road surface. Imagine solar roads. Can you say limitless energy? Isn't that worth encouraging? Wind has the advantage of utilizing land that can't be used effectively for either solar or nuclear power. Harnessing sea power through wave, tidal or ocean current power can also be incredibly profitable but has monstrous start-up costs.

Prove the Earth is round.

Impossible because it isn't. It's spherical. Well, nearly spherical.

The thing is, all these forms of energy have their advantages and disadvantages. Nuclear energy is profitable for the companies that build nuclear power plants so it shouldn't take much encouragement from the government to build more; merely fewer roadblocks. But nuclear power plants don't last forever. In thirty or forty years, the plants have to be decommissioned. The land they are on becomes effectively useless. A fair amount of land also. I can't help but wonder what France plans to do in thirty years.

As one of my partners was a budding nuclear engineer, I can answer that question for you if you remind me. However during my visit to a scottish nuclear power plant,their answer was simple. build the new reactor about 100 metres away.


On the other hand, solar even with today's technology has reached grid parity in remote locations like Hawaii. It's predicted that it will reach grid parity in much of the US by 2015. In addition, Solar has the advantage of using land that's already in use: rooftops, parking lots and one state(Oregon I believe) is testing a photovoltaic road surface. Imagine solar roads. Can you say limitless energy? Isn't that worth encouraging? Wind has the advantage of utilizing land that can't be used effectively for either solar or nuclear power. Harnessing sea power through wave, tidal or ocean current power can also be incredibly profitable but has monstrous start-up costs.

It's worth encouraging, and I absolutely don't believe funding should be -cut- on the contrary, energy is our greatest challenge and one that, if we solve... well we don't have much else to worry about bar meteors and the buffet table being empty. I think there's space for both. I just think nuclear should be used extensively as it can be put in place relatively quickly and even the (if you consider it) very small amounts of derelict land we'll have in 30 years are much less of a problem than global catastrophe. Once the imminent threat of fossil fuels is dealt with, then we have the breathing space to look at the -best- way forward, whatever that may turn out to be.

The thing is, all these forms of energy have their advantages and disadvantages. Nuclear energy is profitable for the companies that build nuclear power plants so it shouldn't take much encouragement from the government to build more; merely fewer roadblocks. But nuclear power plants don't last forever. In thirty or forty years, the plants have to be decommissioned. The land they are on becomes effectively useless. A fair amount of land also. I can't help but wonder what France plans to do in thirty years.


France actually has most of their nuclear plants located in neighboring countries. Once all spent fuel and reactors are removed the decommissioned plant is their problem. Now we got a country to the south with lots of land that would love for Us to lease land and provide jobs. They would likely even let us provide security for these plants.

On the other hand, solar even with today's technology has reached grid parity in remote locations like Hawaii. It's predicted that it will reach grid parity in much of the US by 2015. In addition, Solar has the advantage of using land that's already in use: rooftops, parking lots and one state(Oregon I believe) is testing a photovoltaic road surface. Imagine solar roads. Can you say limitless energy? Isn't that worth encouraging? Wind has the advantage of utilizing land that can't be used effectively for either solar or nuclear power. Harnessing sea power through wave, tidal or ocean current power can also be incredibly profitable but has monstrous start-up costs.

Even the best solar panel is useless at night. The best wind turbine is useless when the wind doesn't blows(and in sever weather). Their are solutions to this but they are costly and require massive grid upgrades batteries and so on. The Pickens plan was estimating 1 trillion dollars to provide the US with 20% of its energy needs. We could get 80% nuclear energy for less then half that.

Switching to Solar and Wind, or any intermittent source is not something we can do in one decade. That is something realistically we can look forward to in the next 5 decades by making new expansions to the grid more flexible and when we repair grid sections doing the same.

As one of my partners was a budding nuclear engineer, I can answer that question for you if you remind me. However during my visit to a scottish nuclear power plant,their answer was simple. build the new reactor about 100 metres away.



It's worth encouraging, and I absolutely don't believe funding should be -cut- on the contrary, energy is our greatest challenge and one that, if we solve... well we don't have much else to worry about bar meteors and the buffet table being empty. I think there's space for both. I just think nuclear should be used extensively as it can be put in place relatively quickly and even the (if you consider it) very small amounts of derelict land we'll have in 30 years are much less of a problem than global catastrophe. Once the imminent threat of fossil fuels is dealt with, then we have the breathing space to look at the -best- way forward, whatever that may turn out to be.

I just think the industries with high potential for success and high value to the country's future deserve more funding than the industries that are already profitable.

Even the best solar panel is useless at night.

Is that so?

http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/02/infrared-solar-panels-even-work-at-night-but-cant-output-energ/

;)

Sick, LG.

Sick, LG.

I think everything should have solar panels on it. I want to cover wind turbines with solar panels. I want to put solar panels on nuclear power plants. And my cat. He's always hogging the rays coming through my window. The least he could do is generate me some juice. :p

Is that so?

http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/02/infrared-solar-panels-even-work-at-night-but-cant-output-energ/

;)

to quote the title

can't output energy


By definition that is a worthless energy producer.

I just think the industries with high potential for success and high value to the country's future deserve more funding than the industries that are already profitable.

The industries that are already profitable have the highest potential of success, that is why they are already profitable.

to quote the title


By definition that is a worthless energy producer.

Can't output energy...yet. Personally, I think it's worth investing in.

Can't output energy...yet. Personally, I think it's worth investing in.

Never mind IR is a lower frequency and lower frequencies have lower energy potentials.

The industries that are already profitable have the highest potential of success, that is why they are already profitable.

Then why spend taxpayer money on them?

Then why spend taxpayer money on them?

Because they are still more expensive than coal. That will be the most profitable electricity industry especially as going green raises Kwh market rates and lowers the market rates of Coal.

Never mind IR is a lower frequency and lower frequencies have lower energy potentials.

Infrared has a higher frequency than microwaves do.

Because they are still more expensive than coal. That will be the most profitable electricity industry especially as going green raises Kwh market rates and lowers the market rates of Coal.

But you can only burn coal once. And you can't mine it out of your rooftop.

It's the primary resource. Wind and solar won't get noticeably better over time, they have pretty much reached their top, unless miracle cheap PV get invented. Nuclear will.

This isn't even vaguely true. Solar technology is advancing at a rapid pace, and one of the big problems with photocells (the energy generated per square area) has been neatly shortcutted round with condensation technology.

In fact, it looks almost like you posted entirely backwards. Short of sudden inspirational fusion, it is nuclear technology that has been creeping, chronologically.

That seems to be where the senator disagrees with you.
I am of the mind set, lets get clean energy now with nuclear.

There is no clean energy with nuclear.

And it's another finite resource.

But you can only burn coal once. And you can't mine it out of your rooftop.
You can burn it on your rooftop, though most furnaces put them in the basement. Which is about the same.

You can burn coal at night.
You can burn coal when the wind isn't blowing.

You can adjust the amount of coal burned to fit demand for energy at the moment. You can't adjust wind and solar output to the immediate needs of the populace.

The same can be said of nuclear it can fit the demand that is ever shifting.

No matter how good you make Solar and Wind, you still have to spend 5 Trillion dollars upgrading the grid (estimate from Pickens plan). Or you can spend 500 billion replacing all coal plants with nuclear ones, no grid upgrades needed.

Infrared has a higher frequency than microwaves do.

Maybe i am mistaken but i could have sworn Photovoltaics used visible light and UV.

You can burn it on your rooftop, though most furnaces put them in the basement. Which is about the same.

You can burn coal at night.
You can burn coal when the wind isn't blowing.

You can adjust the amount of coal burned to fit demand for energy at the moment. You can't adjust wind and solar output to the immediate needs of the populace.

The same can be said of nuclear it can fit the demand that is ever shifting.

No matter how good you make Solar and Wind, you still have to spend 5 Trillion dollars upgrading the grid (estimate from Pickens plan). Or you can spend 500 billion replacing all coal plants with nuclear ones, no grid upgrades needed.

Unless you figure out how to put a nuclear power plant or coal to electricity generator in everyone's basement, you are still going to need to upgrade the grid.

Unless you figure out how to put a nuclear power plant or coal to electricity generator in everyone's basement, you are still going to need to upgrade the grid.

The current grid does bring the power plant to my light bulb.
The only expansions needed are to cover population growth.

Unless you figure out how to put a nuclear power plant or coal to electricity generator in everyone's basement, you are still going to need to upgrade the grid.

And the problem with the kind of infrastructure we're talking about, is it has a shelf-life. Gaslines, coal plants, nuclear plants - all will eventually become redundant, because they all deal with a finite resource. Which means each of them accrues wasted effort.

Solar, wind, wave, geothermal... other clean and 'infinite' energy sources may require upgrading and repairing, just as the 'finite' equipment does - but the investment is not a guaranteed eventual loss, as it is with fossil fuels, because the resource will not expire.

Maybe i am mistaken but i could have sworn Photovoltaics used visible light and UV.

Specifically, most marketed photovoltaics use a small portion of the visible spectrum. Most high efficiency multi-junction panels are actually a sandwich of several panels that each absorbs a different portion of the spectrum. They can reach efficiencies of a little over 40%. Adding a cost-effective way to absorb infrared energy would not only increase the efficiency of marketable panels even further, but would allow them to generate electricity on cloudy days or at night.

Specifically, most marketed photovoltaics use a small portion of the visible spectrum. Most high efficiency multi-junction panels are actually a sandwich of several panels that each absorbs a different portion of the spectrum. They can reach efficiencies of a little over 40%. Adding a cost-effective way to absorb infrared energy would not only increase the efficiency of marketable panels even further, but would allow them to generate electricity on cloudy days or at night.

But only a very small amount. Slightly less by % then what would normally occurred with visible light. So in order to run the City off of these at night or on cloudy days you would have to over produce by man magnitudes on clear days.
Besides, basing my ability to have electricity and the survival of civilization as we know it, on an unproven technology is dangerous and irresponsible.

But only a very small amount. Slightly less by % then what would normally occurred with visible light. So in order to run the City off of these at night or on cloudy days you would have to over produce by man magnitudes on clear days.


Which is why:

a) you don't want to use just one medium. There will always be wind and wave energy, even at night.

b) you want as much surface area exposure, and storage capacity as you can get. Based on what we know about humans, the statement 'I wished we'd harnessed LESS energy' is unlikely to ever be spoken.


Besides, basing my ability to have electricity and the survival of civilization as we know it, on an unproven technology is dangerous and irresponsible.

But not as dangerous and irresponsible as basing it on technology that we know is extremely finite.

" Oh noes nuclear power killz babies! "

Dumbass hippies.

The fact of the matter is, we NEED Nuclear power; weather the wackos want to admit it not.

Do you honestly think any kind of Wind or Solar power will ever be able to power steel mills? Car factories? or anything else that sucks up power like that?

Solar/Wind= A great a way to supplemt the grid, but CANNOT compete with nuclear or coal for sheer power output.

The current grid does bring the power plant to my light bulb.
The only expansions needed are to cover population growth.

Usually. Unless some pissant energy company in Ohio tries to save a bit of money by not trimming some trees and ends up causing cascading power failure that leaves much of the Northeastern US and Southeastern Canada without power.

" Oh noes nuclear power killz babies! "

Dumbass hippies.

The fact of the matter is, we NEED Nuclear power; weather the wackos want to admit it not.

Do you honestly think any kind of Wind or Solar power will ever be able to power steel mills? Car factories? or anything else that sucks up power like that?

Solar/Wind= A great a way to supplemt the grid, but CANNOT compete with nuclear or coal for sheer power output.

Have you been hanging out with Sen. Lamar Alexander lately? ;)

Have you been hanging out with Sen. Lamar Alexander lately? ;)

The wind isn't blowing....the sun isn't shining.

You have cities, homes, businesses and factory's to power.

Your fucked if Wind and Solar is all you have.

The wind isn't blowing....the sun isn't shining.

You have cities, homes, businesses and factory's to power.

Your fucked if Wind and Solar is all you have.

Duh. Who the fuck is suggesting we only have wind and solar?

Which is why:

a) you don't want to use just one medium. There will always be wind and wave energy, even at night.

Still intermittent. You still have to throw several dollars into upgrading the grid because on a still night your going to have the pipe in the power from somewhere with an excess of wind.


b) you want as much surface area exposure, and storage capacity as you can get. Based on what we know about humans, the statement 'I wished we'd harnessed LESS energy' is unlikely to ever be spoken.

If we are talking surface area to energy ratio then nuclear is the way to go.




But not as dangerous and irresponsible as basing it on technology that we know is extremely finite.

How is 326 years using 1950's(no recycling the fuel) technology "very" Finite ?
or 366 with technology of the 1970's(recycling)
or 488 years at current technology (light water reactors and recycling etc).
source :http://www.nea.fr/html/pub/newsletter/2002/20-2-Nuclear_fuel_resources.pdf

Usually. Unless some pissant energy company in Ohio tries to save a bit of money by not trimming some trees and ends up causing cascading power failure that leaves much of the Northeastern US and Southeastern Canada without power.

The stupidity of man is preventable, the stubbornness of nature is not.
This scenario is just as likely with green energy if not more so due to the increase in connectivity of the grid, and more transmission lines to forget to trim the trees around.

The stupidity of man is preventable, the stubbornness of nature is not.
This scenario is just as likely with green energy if not more so due to the increase in connectivity of the grid, and more transmission lines to forget to trim the trees around.

On the contrary, a more intelligent grid and a decentralized power generation system can prevent cascading power failure by isolating the effected part of the grid.

On the contrary, a more intelligent grid and a decentralized power generation system can prevent cascading power failure by isolating the effected part of the grid.

And if the part of the grid that is isolated happens to be where the wind is blowing and the sun is shining effectivly ?
What then you shut off a large section of the country?
The green grid doesn't decentralize so much as makes the centers of power generation an every shifting mess.

Solar technology is advancing at a rapid pace, and one of the big problems with photocells (the energy generated per square area) has been neatly shortcutted round with condensation technology.
Practical solar involves mirrors and steam turbines, not photovoltaics. PVs are impractically expensive.

And if the part of the grid that is isolated happens to be where the wind is blowing and the sun is shining effectivly ?
What then you shut off a large section of the country?
The green grid doesn't decentralize so much as makes the centers of power generation an every shifting mess.

I don't think you quite grasp how the smart grid will work. If part of the grid is producing power, it wouldn't be isolated. :p

I don't think you quite grasp how the smart grid will work. If part of the grid is producing power, it wouldn't be isolated. :p

Unless someone forgets to trim the trees in that part of the grid.
It is not like power plants were suddenly incapable of production during that black out.
I don't care how smart the grid is, the more complicated you make an infrastructure the more vulnerable to catastrophic failure it is.

That's what I thought was being said. Thanks. :) I think he's definitely damaged in the head. He IS a republican after all. :D

We're not all brain-damaged.

I favor a holistic approach to energy production. Phase in a combination of wind, water, solar and nuclear energy sources - depending on the location, for instance, I can't see water power being used effectively in the desert. And have a scheduled phase-out of inefficient and polluting means of production.

We're not all brain-damaged.

I favor a holistic approach to energy production. Phase in a combination of wind, water, solar and nuclear energy sources - depending on the location, for instance, I can't see water power being used effectively in the desert. And have a scheduled phase-out of inefficient and polluting means of production.

That's the appropriate way to go. Here in Western Australia, we can generate an estimated 90% of our power needs by Solar and Wind means, because we have lots of arid, windy, sun-struck land. New Zealand manages with lots of water power and geo-thermal, because they have lots of rainfall and sit on volcanoes. Use what you've got.

Nuclear power is the best choice for those areas that don't have lots of other power-generating land. It's clean, and efficient, and clean up is actually pretty easy - and one or two reactors will do the job for most major cities.

I'm trying to figure out an exchange like this:

Republicans: "Democrats don't want more nuclear power plants!'

Democrats: "Yes we do. We expanded funding to build more nuclear power plants."

Republicans: "Democrats don't want more nuclear power plants!"
You are confusing Republicans with rational human beings. A simple mistake to make until they open their mouths.

I'm trying to figure out an exchange like this:

Republicans: "Democrats don't want more nuclear power plants!'

Democrats: "Yes we do. We expanded funding to build more nuclear power plants."

Republicans: "Democrats don't want more nuclear power plants!"
I think Mr. Alexander should spend less time standing in front of the microwave to watch his popcorn go round and round while talking on his cell phone. He's the one who's damaged.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/25/gop-like-france-us-should-embrace-nuclear-energy/







Is Senator Lamar Alexander brain damaged or am I? :confused:
DAMMIT

i thought you were going to post something semi rational by a smart republican who understands that they need to have some actual policy to point to....well something besides demanding that the democratic party change its name to the "democrat socialist party"....but NOOOOOO they are still riding the looney bus.

The thing is, all these forms of energy have their advantages and disadvantages. Nuclear energy is profitable for the companies that build nuclear power plants so it shouldn't take much encouragement from the government to build more; merely fewer roadblocks. But nuclear power plants don't last forever. In thirty or forty years, the plants have to be decommissioned. The land they are on becomes effectively useless. A fair amount of land also. I can't help but wonder what France plans to do in thirty years.
I may be wrong about this because I haven't read up on it for many years, but I think the land can be reclaimed with little effort, depending on exactly what the land is contaminated with. There are plants that metabolize various toxins. One example that springs from memory: ragweed eats strontium 90, among other heavy metals, and renders them inert. Apparently, this was discovered a couple of decades ago in the UK, where it was noted that nuke plant lands that were decommissioned and essentially abandoned became thriving fields of ragweed and rapidly lost radioactivity, becoming safe in less than 25 years, as opposed to the hundreds of years calculated without the ragweed. (Note: I mean the ground became not "hot" in less that 25 years. The plants themselves were always safe because they were eating and destroying the toxins.)

Of course, that's not very good news for people with allergies, but it is good news for the makers of Claritin and similar products, as well as for the paper industry, as I believe such plants can be used for papers and textiles as well.

I detest nuclear power because to me the dangers of it are much more immediate than long-term contaminated soil, and they all stem from gross incompetence on the part of the people running the plants. And considering recent history -- I am loathe to go down that road with those people. It is a known fact of the nuclear age that idiots cause cancer.


On the other hand, solar even with today's technology has reached grid parity in remote locations like Hawaii. It's predicted that it will reach grid parity in much of the US by 2015. In addition, Solar has the advantage of using land that's already in use: rooftops, parking lots and one state(Oregon I believe) is testing a photovoltaic road surface. Imagine solar roads. Can you say limitless energy? Isn't that worth encouraging? Wind has the advantage of utilizing land that can't be used effectively for either solar or nuclear power. Harnessing sea power through wave, tidal or ocean current power can also be incredibly profitable but has monstrous start-up costs.
Oil and coal are 19th century. Old. Over. Obsolete. Time for them to go.

Nuclear is 20th century. Guess what? That century's over, too. Old. Obsolete. Not interested. I'm an American -- I want NEW!!

Solar, wind, geo, bio, etc. are the technologies of the 21st century. What time is it now? Oh, right, it's the 21st century!! Guess where my investment dollars will be going.

I don't even know why we argue over this. Oil, coal and nuke obviously only have enough usefulness in them to carry us through the transition period away from them -- and then only if we don't dawdle. More money poured into them now is a waste of money. When I hear the various supporters of those industries trying to convince me otherwise, I feel like I'm hearing the distant calls of dinosaurs.

The stupidity of man is preventable <snip>
I challenge you to prove this. ^^

I challenge you to prove this. ^^

Stupid things done by uneducated people.
Stupid things done by educated people.

Which is less, which is more ?

Dumbass hippies.


One doesn't ned to be a hippy to understand that radiation can have deleterious effects. One doesn't need to be a dumbass to understand that halflives in the tens an hundreds of thousands of years, mean that radioactive waste will still be polluting long after the things your reactor could power are dust.


Do you honestly think any kind of Wind or Solar power will ever be able to power steel mills? Car factories? or anything else that sucks up power like that?


Yes.

I challenge you to prove this. ^^

Or another angle since I am bored.

Anything that a man can do, He can also be prevented from doing that.
Stupid actions of man are things that others can prevent him from doing.
Therefore stupid actions of man can be prevented.

Solar, wind, geo, bio, etc. are the technologies of the 21st century.
Actually, more like 30th century. Before Christ.

Captain Obvious would also like to point out that except for PVs, they're not exactly being reinvented, but merely evolved and hooked up to electricity generators.

One doesn't need to be a dumbass to understand that halflives in the tens an hundreds of thousands of years, mean that radioactive waste will still be polluting long after the things your reactor could power are dust.
One does, actually.

Know what? Your home is filled with elements which have half-lifes not of mere hundreds thousands, but of BILLIONS and TRILLIONS of years.

Stupid things done by uneducated people.
Stupid things done by educated people.

Which is less, which is more ?
I'm asking YOU to show which is less or more? Also, how is citing stupidity by everyone showing that stupidity is preventable?

Thank you for completing that fail so quickly. Now I can go do my laundry.

PS: Do something about your grammar, will you? "Which is less [of what], which is more [of what]?" What you should have written is "Which occurs more often, and which occurs less often?"

How is that showing that stupidity is preventable?

Thank you for completing that fail so quickly. Now I can go do my laundry.

Answer the questions.
the questions are not answers.

Or another angle since I am bored.

Anything that a man can do, He can also be prevented from doing that.
Stupid actions of man are things that others can prevent him from doing.
Therefore stupid actions of man can be prevented.
Also not proof of your assertion.

Answer the questions.
the questions are not answers.
No. I challenged you, not the other way around. You don't get to "prove" your point by foisting the responsibility to back it up on to me.

One doesn't ned to be a hippy to understand that radiation can have deleterious effects. One doesn't need to be a dumbass to understand that halflives in the tens an hundreds of thousands of years, mean that radioactive waste will still be polluting long after the things your reactor could power are dust.

Yeah, but who cares? By the time it would be an issue, humanity's either long since found a way to clean up and eliminate nuclear waste or we're extinct, in which case it doesn't matter what happens to the environment.

Really, storage of nuclear waste is generally a nonissue. If you reprocess the stuff you basically turn nuclear power in to renewable energy, especially since there's a pretty gigantic amount of uranium floating in the oceans and in the Earth. The primary concern with nuclear power is nuclear proliferation, although honestly there aren't many more countries that want nuclear weapons but don't have them.

Also not proof of your assertion.



All actions of man can be prevented. Yes or no ??
Stupid actions of man are also actions of man. Yes or no??

If these two are both yes then all stupid actions of man can be prevented.

Yeah, but who cares? By the time it would be an issue, humanity's either long since found a way to clean up and eliminate nuclear waste or we're extinct, in which case it doesn't matter what happens to the environment.
So, you would rather spend all your time and money on a high risk energy industry on the basis of utterly unsupported speculations about the future, than spend time and money on a low risk energy industry because you claim it is based on utterly unsupported speculations about the future?

All actions of man can be prevented. Yes or no ??
Stupid actions of man are also actions of man. Yes or no??

If these two are both yes then all stupid actions of man can be prevented.
Now prove to me that the anwer to either of those questions is yes. Historical examples of things not going horribly wrong because stupidity was prevented will suffice. Since we're discussing it, you can use nukes as your example base for starters.

No. I challenged you, not the other way around. You don't get to "prove" your point by foisting the responsibility to back it up on to me.

I am not asking you to decide.
I am asking for your input.

I am not asking you to decide.
I am asking for your input.
Why? Because you don't know the answer yourself? You don't know the evidence that will back up your own claim, so you need me to provide it for you via input?

I refer you to my previous post. Show me precisely how we are going to prevent human stupidity so as to assure me that there will not be another Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. I look forward to that proof. Seriously, I do.

So, you would rather spend all your time and money on a high risk energy industry on the basis of utterly unsupported speculations about the future, than spend time and money on a low risk energy industry because you claim it is based on utterly unsupported speculations about the future?

No, but unless you can solve the problem of variability in renewable energy production, it's not going to be able to fill more than 20-30% of overall energy demand at current levels, and of that a good chunk isn't going to be where it's needed, which means a gigantic fuss over transmission lines that could delay projects and drive up costs. You need something that will be able to generate massive amounts of energy at a stable rate at all times, and at present that leaves you with coal, natural gas, and nuclear.

Nuclear is clean and can generate massive amount of electricity to support the renewables that replace the rest of the fossil fuels consumed in our grid.

No, but unless you can solve the problem of variability in renewable energy production, it's not going to be able to fill more than 20-30% of overall energy demand at current levels, and of that a good chunk isn't going to be where it's needed, which means a gigantic fuss over transmission lines that could delay projects and drive up costs. You need something that will be able to generate massive amounts of energy at a stable rate at all times, and at present that leaves you with coal, natural gas, and nuclear.

Nuclear is clean and can generate massive amount of electricity to support the renewables that replace the rest of the fossil fuels consumed in our grid.

You don't need to generate large amounts of energy all the time, money just needs to be spent on researching ways to store large amounts of energy.

I refer you to my previous post. Show me precisely how we are going to prevent human stupidity so as to assure me that there will not be another Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. I look forward to that proof. Seriously, I do.

But on the contrary, how many more people have died from the effects of air pollution produced by fossil fuels? No doubt it's orders of magnitude higher than all of the victims of every nuclear accident in history, and that's despite only being around about 4 times as long as nuclear power.

You don't need to generate large amounts of energy all the time, money just needs to be spent on researching ways to store large amounts of energy.

Well, it does. However, it takes time and it takes a lot of money to produce the kind of energy storage at the capacities needed; also, there may simply be "droughts" where renewable production is depressed for an extended period of time, which would leave you with a shortfall unless you stored a colossal amount of energy, which would in turn be pretty expensive.

My primarily interest in nuclear power is phasing out coal. You'll need big, steady sources of energy for that as well as to meet increasing demand until renewables start to make a bigger impact on the grid.

No, but unless you can solve the problem of variability in renewable energy production, it's not going to be able to fill more than 20-30% of overall energy demand at current levels, and of that a good chunk isn't going to be where it's needed, which means a gigantic fuss over transmission lines that could delay projects and drive up costs. You need something that will be able to generate massive amounts of energy at a stable rate at all times, and at present that leaves you with coal, natural gas, and nuclear.

Nuclear is clean and can generate massive amount of electricity to support the renewables that replace the rest of the fossil fuels consumed in our grid.

Not all renewable energy sources are variable. Wave energy is pretty stable. As are undersea ocean currents. Geothermal energy is pretty stable too. Infrared and wide-spectrum solar can produce power all day all night. In addition, innovations in battery technology can make it possible to store electricity in order to smooth out that variability. But if I were in charge, I design a system to produce considerably more electricity than necessary so that at it's lows it's still enough and at it's peaks the excess electricity can be converted into hydrogen and sold as fuel to other countries. Sure using electricity to produce hydrogen is relatively inefficient, but once the electricity producing structure is in place, it's effectively free profitable product.

Now prove to me that the anwer to either of those questions is yes. Historical examples of things not going horribly wrong because stupidity was prevented will suffice. Since we're discussing it, you can use nukes as your example base for starters.

Easy.
1. Nuclear fission is a natural action and hence is not something we can prevent with out the ability to change the laws of physics.
2. So I will assume you mean the prevention of the use of nuclear material.

Simple 1913 governments of the world declare Radioactive material dangerous out laws it used for experimentation or any other purposes. Jails all physicist, mathematicians, and other scientist involved with researching such knowledge.
There no use of nuclear material.

No, but unless you can solve the problem of variability in renewable energy production, it's not going to be able to fill more than 20-30% of overall energy demand at current levels, and of that a good chunk isn't going to be where it's needed, which means a gigantic fuss over transmission lines that could delay projects and drive up costs. You need something that will be able to generate massive amounts of energy at a stable rate at all times, and at present that leaves you with coal, natural gas, and nuclear.

Nuclear is clean and can generate massive amount of electricity to support the renewables that replace the rest of the fossil fuels consumed in our grid.
That argument would hold any interest whatsoever if anyone had been advocating an energy monoculture. But since everyone is talking about combinations of energy sources/systems, it's an empty point.

In addition, since all you have is tealeaf-reading about what will happen tomorrow, I will decline to go along with your predictions on the grounds that your vision of the future ignores the past. My tealeaves tell me that it is very likely that the technology for solar, wind, etc, energy production and delivery will be rapidly improved if the R&D is supported, just as has happened consistently in the past.

So my investment dollars (which are really bets placed on the future) will go towards that on the grounds that, although past performance does not guarantee future performance, it's still the safer bet.

But on the contrary, how many more people have died from the effects of air pollution produced by fossil fuels? No doubt it's orders of magnitude higher than all of the victims of every nuclear accident in history, and that's despite only being around about 4 times as long as nuclear power.
The fact that A is bad does not mean that B is good.

Easy.
1. Nuclear fission is a natural action and hence is not something we can prevent with out the ability to change the laws of physics.
2. So I will assume you mean the prevention of the use of nuclear material.

Simple 1913 governments of the world declare Radioactive material dangerous out laws it used for experimentation or any other purposes. Jails all physicist, mathematicians, and other scientist involved with researching such knowledge.
There no use of nuclear material.
The assumption you made falsified your argument. I meant what I said, not what you wish I had said so you could come up with some kind of answer.

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were, basically, simple industrial accidents the cause of both of which was attributable to human error in mismanagement of the plant equipment. Show me how that stupidity is preventable.

Also, I would remind you that a person capable of knowing the law and complying with it in order to avoid problems is not stupid to begin with. A person who is stupid is likely to go ahead with whatever he wants to do anyway, either despite the law or in ignorance of it, and act all surprised when he gets carted off to jail. Meanwhile, whatever damage he caused cannot be undone. So inasmuch as law is remedial, not preventative, that also fails to support your claim that the stupidity of people can be prevented.

Not all renewable energy sources are variable. Wave energy is pretty stable. As are undersea ocean currents. Geothermal energy is pretty stable too. Infrared and wide-spectrum solar can produce power all day all night. In addition, innovations in battery technology can make it possible to store electricity in order to smooth out that variability. But if I were in charge, I design a system to produce considerably more electricity than necessary so that at it's lows it's still enough and at it's peaks the excess electricity can be converted into hydrogen and sold as fuel to other countries. Sure using electricity to produce hydrogen is relatively inefficient, but once the electricity producing structure is in place, it's effectively free profitable product.

Yes, but you still run in to another challenge of renewable energy; the places that generate energy are often not going to be the places consuming it. So, you'd have to build the infrastructure to support an entirely new form of power grid; with tidal power, it wouldn't be too bad because a lot of cities are on the coast, but at the same time they need access to sea lanes for shipping. Geothermal's limited by the quality of the heat source, although it's basically as stable as coal or nuclear.

In the long term, these power sources could definitely meet all of our needs. Advances in technology have been remarkable in just the past decade, basically catapulting the field from uselessness to full-blown competition with fossil fuels and nuclear. I don't think this trend will change, although this recession has caused activity in the industry to slow pretty significantly (although this is hardly anything new).

However, a fully renewable grid could be decades or even longer down the road, and power demand will keep increasing; we've got to do something to reduce or eliminate our reliance on coal and natural gas.

Yes, but you still run in to another challenge of renewable energy; the places that generate energy are often not going to be the places consuming it. So, you'd have to build the infrastructure to support an entirely new form of power grid; with tidal power, it wouldn't be too bad because a lot of cities are on the coast, but at the same time they need access to sea lanes for shipping. Geothermal's limited by the quality of the heat source, although it's basically as stable as coal or nuclear.

In the long term, these power sources could definitely meet all of our needs. Advances in technology have been remarkable in just the past decade, basically catapulting the field from uselessness to full-blown competition with fossil fuels and nuclear. I don't think this trend will change, although this recession has caused activity in the industry to slow pretty significantly (although this is hardly anything new).

However, a fully renewable grid could be decades or even longer down the road, and power demand will keep increasing; we've got to do something to reduce or eliminate our reliance on coal and natural gas.
We already ship energy around the continent. A good deal of the energy consumed in the US is generated in Canada right now, and in other parts of the continent, the delivery runs the opposite way. Also, state utilties are constantly buying and selling electricity from each other.

I am not convinced that the fact that we would have to ship energy in much the same way we do now is a knock against renewable energy.

Actually, because many buildings can be made all or partially energy self-sufficient, and can even be contributors to the grid rather than just drains off it, with renewable resource technology, we could end up having to ship LESS energy around the continent.

Yes, but you still run in to another challenge of renewable energy; the places that generate energy are often not going to be the places consuming it. So, you'd have to build the infrastructure to support an entirely new form of power grid; with tidal power, it wouldn't be too bad because a lot of cities are on the coast, but at the same time they need access to sea lanes for shipping. Geothermal's limited by the quality of the heat source, although it's basically as stable as coal or nuclear.

In the long term, these power sources could definitely meet all of our needs. Advances in technology have been remarkable in just the past decade, basically catapulting the field from uselessness to full-blown competition with fossil fuels and nuclear. I don't think this trend will change, although this recession has caused activity in the industry to slow pretty significantly (although this is hardly anything new).

However, a fully renewable grid could be decades or even longer down the road, and power demand will keep increasing; we've got to do something to reduce or eliminate our reliance on coal and natural gas.

Nuclear fits that short-term goal nicely. I just don't see as much need in investing government money into it. It's already a profitable industry. All the government really needs to do is stop preventing more nuclear power plants. Considering how some of the more public members of the Republican Party rage against excessive government spending, it seems odd that they want to invest government money more into an industry that doesn't need it and less into ones that do.

That argument would hold any interest whatsoever if anyone had been advocating an energy monoculture. But since everyone is talking about combinations of energy sources/systems, it's an empty point.

Even if you combine them, the problems are still there. It makes it easier to circumvent them, but they're still there. However, it's also a problem that some areas would still be a monoculture regardless of the energy mix; you might be able to generate only wind or geothermal or only solar or tidal energy in some places. Until you've got a grid that can shift around power rapidly and in real time, these limitations will still hold no matter the energy mix.

That takes time, research, and money. It'll happen, but not overnight, especially since you'll need not only the grid but also the storage technology and the raw renewable capacity. Building 660,000+ MW of renewables is a gigantic task, again something that is possible but won't be realized overnight.

{QUOTE]In addition, since all you have is tealeaf-reading about what will happen tomorrow, I will decline to go along with your predictions on the grounds that your vision of the future ignores the past. My tealeaves tell me that it is very likely that the technology for solar, wind, etc, energy production and delivery will be rapidly improved if the R&D is supported, just as has happened consistently in the past.[/QUOTE]

It's a given. Nobody argues that. However, it still takes time to implement all these changes and improvements, and in that time we'll still need to reduce emissions and meet power demand.

The fact that A is bad does not mean that B is good.

But when you have to choose between the two, do you choose the one that's worse?

Renewables are simply not capable of meeting our entire energy needs at present and we need to fulfill our ever-increasing power demand. We need either nuclear to meet that demand without further burdening the environment with emissions until the technology is there to use renewables as a primary source of energy.

Even if you combine them, the problems are still there. It makes it easier to circumvent them, but they're still there. However, it's also a problem that some areas would still be a monoculture regardless of the energy mix; you might be able to generate only wind or geothermal or only solar or tidal energy in some places. Until you've got a grid that can shift around power rapidly and in real time, these limitations will still hold no matter the energy mix.

That takes time, research, and money. It'll happen, but not overnight, especially since you'll need not only the grid but also the storage technology and the raw renewable capacity. Building 660,000+ MW of renewables is a gigantic task, again something that is possible but won't be realized overnight.
So?

And who said anything about anything happening overnight?

It's a given. Nobody argues that. However, it still takes time to implement all these changes and improvements, and in that time we'll still need to reduce emissions and meet power demand.
No kidding. And...?

But when you have to choose between the two, do you choose the one that's worse?
Neither. I choose the third option, which is not perfect but is still better than either of the old two.

Renewables are simply not capable of meeting our entire energy needs at present and we need to fulfill our ever-increasing power demand. We need either nuclear to meet that demand without further burdening the environment with emissions until the technology is there to use renewables as a primary source of energy.
More lack of vision talking. More baseless assumptions about what is not going to happen in the future.

G&D's argument is utterly dependent on the unsupported belief that stupidity can be stopped from happening.

Your argument seems utterly dependent on the mirror-image unsupported belief, i.e. that smartness will never happen, that the technology that exists today will never progress from what it is today, from the production capacity it has right now. That fails because that's just not how life works, and I base that on thousands of years of history.

No, but unless you can solve the problem of variability in renewable energy production, it's not going to be able to fill more than 20-30% of overall energy demand at current levels, and of that a good chunk isn't going to be where it's needed, which means a gigantic fuss over transmission lines that could delay projects and drive up costs. You need something that will be able to generate massive amounts of energy at a stable rate at all times, and at present that leaves you with coal, natural gas, and nuclear.

Nuclear is clean and can generate massive amount of electricity to support the renewables that replace the rest of the fossil fuels consumed in our grid.

Nuclear is very clean, if you discount the tons of nuclear waste that it produces that stays radioactive for years. And you don't need a stable rate at all times. You need a lower rate at night and a higher rate during the day during peak hours. Wasn't there some plan with thermal exchange and roadways or parking lots?

Nuclear is very clean, if you discount the tons of nuclear waste that it produces that stays radioactive for years. And you don't need a stable rate at all times. You need a lower rate at night and a higher rate during the day during peak hours. Wasn't there some plan with thermal exchange and roadways or parking lots?
The "nuclear is clean" argument reminds me of a woman I overheard on the street complaining to someone else "How can something I can't even see make me sick?" And this was in the 21st century! :eek2:

Just because nuclear plants pump out white steam instead of black smoke, that does not make them "clean."

There is no clean energy with nuclear.

Considering how much fossil fuel one needs to mine all the necessary building materials and then construct the thing, that's quite true.

And it's another finite resource.

Also true, although it would last quite a while.

Practical solar involves mirrors and steam turbines, not photovoltaics.

I still say Egypt needs to get off it's ass and work on that...what is it, over 90% desert there?

PVs are impractically expensive.

For now...

Nuclear is very clean, if you discount the tons of nuclear waste that it produces that stays radioactive for years.
Yes, but it's not actually harmful. It just sits there in a deep cavern.

Pollutants are extremely harmful to the environment, particularly the biosphere. CO2 is seriously harmful to the environment. Radioactivity, except at extreme levels, isn't. Even the area of the Chernobyl accident has flourishing plant and animal life, unaware of and largely unharmed by the radioactive waste spread around.

Radioactivity only has significant potential to harm humans, and only those humans who come in close contact with the source. And humans are at no risk of extinction, in fact, we have to use condoms to keep their population at bay.
So, nuclear power is clean. It has risks, very small risks, with non-severe consequences, but per se, when working properly, it's causing no harm. It is clean. The waste, of which there is a tiny amount, is dangerous to handle, but not harmful.

This is much unlike any fossil fuels, which pollute continuously, or hydro power, which causes clear and present harm to ecosystems, or even wind, which involves producing enormous amounts of metals and plastics first.

Yes, but it's not actually harmful. It just sits there in a deep cavern.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning
And here's the trick.

Don't dive into the container with nuclear waste, and you won't get radiation poisoning.
Simple enough? I think it is.


Compare it to a razor blade versus a turd. The razor blade is harmless unless you cut yourself with it - dangerous, but not polluting. A turd fills your whole house with stench, no matter how well you avoid touching it.
Nuclear is the razor. Fossil is the turd.

And here's the trick.

Don't dive into the container with nuclear waste, and you won't get radiation poisoning.
Simple enough? I think it is.


But then how am I supposed to develop superpowers? :(

But then how am I supposed to develop superpowers? :(

You dip the spider in and then get it to bite you.

Duh.

But then how am I supposed to develop superpowers? :(
These green containers contain the FEV, not nuclear waste.

And here's the trick.

Don't dive into the container with nuclear waste, and you won't get radiation poisoning.
Simple enough? I think it is.


Compare it to a razor blade versus a turd. The razor blade is harmless unless you cut yourself with it - dangerous, but not polluting. A turd fills your whole house with stench, no matter how well you avoid touching it.
Nuclear is the razor. Fossil is the turd.

I don't think you quite understand radiation.

I don't think you quite understand radiation.
I rather have reasons to believe I do. I have been trained in radiation safety. I also had courses on design specifics of nuclear powered vessels. And I just do know a fair bit about it from other sources as well.

Radioactives do not destroy the environment. They do not ruin ecosystems, change the climate, poison the air, or whatever. All they do is make their direct vicinity (a few yards) unsafe to be in. And, in case of a spill, can increase cancer risk in humans directly exposed (mutation myths are just that, myths). As long as precautions are taken, it means no one.

Nuclear power is safe and harmless for the planet. It causes no lasting damage. The only damage it can do is to the humans using it, but unless abused, it does't. Even if it does, said damage is several orders of magnitude lower than portrayed in scary movies.

Fission power is but a temporary measure until one or both of currently developed fusion reactors start working.

[edit: my stick into an anthill]

Nuclear power is safe and harmless for the planet. It causes no lasting damage. The only damage it can do is to the humans using it, but unless abused, it does't. Even if it does, said damage is several orders of magnitude lower than portrayed in scary movies.

Other than the tons of nuclear waste output. Eventually waste will exceed designated storage facilities and containers will fail. Both far before the half life of the radioactivity.

Other than the tons of nuclear waste output. Eventually waste will exceed designated storage facilities and containers will fail. Both far before the half life of the radioactivity.

It's better than hundreds of thousands of tons (I feel like I'm underestimating here) of non-nuclear waste.

Other than the tons of nuclear waste output. Eventually waste will exceed designated storage facilities and containers will fail. Both far before the half life of the radioactivity.
Wow.

Look, I know it's common to think of everyone else as idiots, but trust me, they aren't.

Waste will not exceed the capacity, because the capacity will be extended. If you're worried that the Earth's capacity will be exceeded, don't. Nuclear waste is so small in volume compared to the waste from any other power source - including even wind, you'll have non-recyclable parts, and of course including solar - that there's no serious limit.

And even if it somehow did, nothing would fail. Because nuclear waste storage is not pumped into there like air into a balloon. It's put to storage in thick, strong barrels, in reinforced concrete containers.

Wow.

Look, I know it's common to think of everyone else as idiots, but trust me, they aren't.

Waste will not exceed the capacity, because the capacity will be extended. If you're worried that the Earth's capacity will be exceeded, don't. Nuclear waste is so small in volume compared to the waste from any other power source - including even wind, you'll have non-recyclable parts, and of course including solar - that there's no serious limit.

And even if it somehow did, nothing would fail. Because nuclear waste storage is not pumped into there like air into a balloon. It's put to storage in thick, strong barrels, in reinforced concrete containers.

This is quite short-sighted.

What's the half-life of nuclear waste?

Waste will not exceed the capacity, because the capacity will be extended.

You obviously missed my point by a very large margin.


And even if it somehow did, nothing would fail. Because nuclear waste storage is not pumped into there like air into a balloon. It's put to storage in thick, strong barrels, in reinforced concrete containers.

Now you are just being a delusional fanboy.
http://www.google.com/search?q=nuclear+container+fail

This is quite short-sighted.

What's the half-life of nuclear waste?

What is the halflife of concrete? If nuclear waste inexorably spread and killed every living thing then guess what we'd be. -Dead-. Look up. bright thing in the sky? REALLY radioactive. Nuclear waste can and is safely contained within things that can survive anything on earth trying to breach it. Why would nuclear waste suddenly spring out of these sealed containers? it's not sentient, it isn't trying to destroy the world.

This is quite short-sighted.
What's the half-life of nuclear waste?
From 1 hour to 20 trillion years.

The longer the half-life, the less dangerous the substance.

So it never comes down to zero radioactivity - but then stuff with a half-life of a hundred years is so weak it's safe to walk on, and that with thousand-year half-life safe enough to sit on, and so on. At some point in time, it comes to a radioactivity level compared to the background radiation.

Small amounts of radiation are for all purposes harmless. Medium can increase the incidence of cancer with prolonged exposure. Both are pretty much harmless to animals, for they don't live long enough to worry about cancer anyway. Very high radiation levels can cause radiation poisoning, which is indeed dangerous to anything alive, but such levels are only found inside the active zone of a working reactor, not in the waste. Much less by the time it gets buried. We only bury it once it's down to a very low radioactivity level so that it's no danger if it spills due to some earthquake.

What is the halflife of concrete?

Are you somehow implying concrete lasts forever? That's almost as silly as what he is saying. Ever heard of earthquakes?

Look up. bright thing in the sky? REALLY radioactive
Ok, now that IS dumber than what he is saying.

If you people are going to be purposefully obtuse, why don't you go have a little nuclear energy circle jerk somewhere else.

Ah, you people do realise that a coal burning power plant, over it's lifetime, creates far more radioactive waste product than a nuclear plant does, right? And that, rather than being safely barreled, transported and stored, all of THAT waste is released into the atmosphere?

Now, that's more of an argument against coal than for nuclear, but here's some other truths: American and French built rectors have, so far, 100% non-fatality records when it comes to radiation. The worst possible disaster from such a plant has already occurred, the semi-meltdown of one reactor at Three Mile Island; no one was harmed.

As to waste, 90% of that isn't in the "thousands of years" category. The irradiated piping and internal structures of plants will cool in a few hundred years; many of the radioactive materials will degrade to harmlessness in the same amount of time. Even the worst of the worst will reduce in dangerousness and be less of a threat.

As to storage materials, long term storage of nuclear wastes is conducted in a variety of ways. Much of it these days is transformed into solid forms, through crystallizing materials and simply mixing with concrete - Instead of near-uncontrollable sludges, modern wastes are solid blocks, no danger to water tables or other delicate natural structures.

Most of the scare stories about nuke power are just that - stories. They have no connection to the modern reality.

What is the halflife of concrete? If nuclear waste inexorably spread and killed every living thing then guess what we'd be. -Dead-. Look up. bright thing in the sky? REALLY radioactive. Nuclear waste can and is safely contained within things that can survive anything on earth trying to breach it. Why would nuclear waste suddenly spring out of these sealed containers? it's not sentient, it isn't trying to destroy the world.

Concrete will decompose relatively quickly in comparison to the materials it would be housing. The containers will require constant maintenence for the millions of years it will take for the waste to decompose to a safe level and humanity hasn't even managed to maintain a coherent society for 10000 years yet.

These containment facilities would just become timebombs waiting to do large amounts of damage to future generations.

How would we maintain exact records of the position of these facilities down the years? Our current methods of data storage are based on paper and electronics, the ancient Egyptians used to carve their information into stone and we still don't know the exact locations of all their cities and that was only a few thousand years ago, what makes you think we'll be able to reliably pass down this infomation for the amount of time that's required?

Concrete will decompose relatively quickly in comparison to the materials it would be housing. The containers will require constant maintenence for the millions of years it will take for the waste to decompose to a safe level
I'm fed up... Generally I prefer discussing stuff with trusting everyone's word, but now we're gone straight to the pulp fiction. So I have to say the s-word. Source.

Figures. Name of the element and isotope, half-life, radioactivity emitted, percentage or amount in nuclear waste.

You made this claim - so it's up to you to find figures backing up your assertion of these mysterious wastes that emit dangerous radiation for millions of years.

Are you somehow implying concrete lasts forever? That's almost as silly as what he is saying. Ever heard of earthquakes?


Ok, now that IS dumber than what he is saying.

If you people are going to be purposefully obtuse, why don't you go have a little nuclear energy circle jerk somewhere else.

I have to ask, what was dumb about what I said?

Concrete will decompose relatively quickly in comparison to the materials it would be housing. The containers will require constant maintenence for the millions of years it will take for the waste to decompose to a safe level and humanity hasn't even managed to maintain a coherent society for 10000 years yet.

These containment facilities would just become timebombs waiting to do large amounts of damage to future generations.

How would we maintain exact records of the position of these facilities down the years? Our current methods of data storage are based on paper and electronics, the ancient Egyptians used to carve their information into stone and we still don't know the exact locations of all their cities and that was only a few thousand years ago, what makes you think we'll be able to reliably pass down this infomation for the amount of time that's required?

Fuck em. :p

How would we maintain exact records of the position of these facilities down the years? Our current methods of data storage are based on paper and electronics, the ancient Egyptians used to carve their information into stone and we still don't know the exact locations of all their cities and that was only a few thousand years ago, what makes you think we'll be able to reliably pass down this infomation for the amount of time that's required?

It happens that this problem was recognised, and there was some amount of work put into devising methods of informing future generations about the danger. I even had the link once, it's somewhere on tvtropes.org, unfortunately I don't remember where, which lead to an article on this. The premise was how to inform our blasted-back-to-the-Stone-Age descendants that this cave is both dangerous and deprived of +5 swords on the third level.

Ah, you people do realise that a coal burning power plant, over it's lifetime, creates far more radioactive waste product than a nuclear plant does, right? And that, rather than being safely barreled, transported and stored, all of THAT waste is released into the atmosphere?

Now, that's more of an argument against coal than for nuclear, but here's some other truths: American and French built rectors have, so far, 100% non-fatality records when it comes to radiation. The worst possible disaster from such a plant has already occurred, the semi-meltdown of one reactor at Three Mile Island; no one was harmed.

As to waste, 90% of that isn't in the "thousands of years" category. The irradiated piping and internal structures of plants will cool in a few hundred years; many of the radioactive materials will degrade to harmlessness in the same amount of time. Even the worst of the worst will reduce in dangerousness and be less of a threat.

As to storage materials, long term storage of nuclear wastes is conducted in a variety of ways. Much of it these days is transformed into solid forms, through crystallizing materials and simply mixing with concrete - Instead of near-uncontrollable sludges, modern wastes are solid blocks, no danger to water tables or other delicate natural structures.

Most of the scare stories about nuke power are just that - stories. They have no connection to the modern reality.

You said exactly what I've been ineptly trying to - serves me right for trying to remember what I was tought about nuclear storage.

I'm fed up... Generally I prefer discussing stuff with trusting everyone's word, but now we're gone straight to the pulp fiction. So I have to say the s-word. Source.

Figures. Name of the element and isotope, half-life, radioactivity emitted, percentage or amount in nuclear waste.

You made this claim - so it's up to you to find figures backing up your assertion of these mysterious wastes that emit dangerous radiation for millions of years.

Technetium-99 - 211,00 years
Neptunium-237 - 2,000,000 years
Iodine-129 - 15,000,000 years

All Alpha and/or Beta emitters, not going to kill you quickly unless introduced into the body but that is exactly what will happen as these storage facilities degrade and the material enters the air and water supplies.

Don't misundersatnd my position, I love nuclear power, it will be the saviour of humanity while we make that step to renewables but I dislike people who are shortsighted enough to think that we can just bury our waste in concrete and everything will be ok. If we're going to produce this material then we need to start spending serious amounts of money finding ways to make the waste 100% safe.

What I don't get is why nobody is focusing on fusion power, especially when you have some scientists claiming that the technology is only 10 -20 years away at current research rates, and that it is considerably cleaner and safer than fission power. As well as the fact that some forms of fusion power are theoretically sustainable for 150 billion years!!

Technetium-99 - 211,00 years
Neptunium-237 - 2,000,000 years
Iodine-129 - 15,000,000 years

All Alpha and/or Beta emitters, not going to kill you quickly unless introduced into the body but that is exactly what will happen as these storage facilities degrade and the material enters the air and water supplies.

Don't misundersatnd my position, I love nuclear power, it will be the saviour of humanity while we make that step to renewables but I dislike people who are shortsighted enough to think that we can just bury our waste in concrete and everything will be ok. If we're going to produce this material then we need to start spending serious amounts of money finding ways to make the waste 100% safe.

So what if it does? It'll take what a few centuries? Even my grandkids will be long dead. It'll only effect future people and I hate those arrogant bastards. Let em drink isotopes. :p

Im not seeing why we cant fund more research into cleaner forms of energy, and get Nuclear Power now, its not making sense to me...

Technetium-99 - 211,00 years
Neptunium-237 - 2,000,000 years
Iodine-129 - 15,000,000 years
Nice. I have something to top you out, though. Bismuth-209 - 19,000,000,000,000,000,000 years.

The issue is, elements that have long half-lives also have low radioactivity. No way around - radiation comes from them splitting.


All Alpha and/or Beta emitters, not going to kill you quickly unless introduced into the body but that is exactly what will happen as these storage facilities degrade and the material enters the air and water supplies.
Except it doesn't enter these supplies. And even if it somehow does, the concentrations are so small that they'll be barely above the background radiation.


If we're going to produce this material then we need to start spending serious amounts of money finding ways to make the waste 100% safe.
Never. Nothing is 100% safe.
It's safer than any fossil fuels - that should be enough. 99.9999% is more than enough.

One does, actually.

Know what? Your home is filled with elements which have half-lifes not of mere hundreds thousands, but of BILLIONS and TRILLIONS of years.

Which would be significant if we were talking about the radioactive decay of, for example, curtains. :rolleyes:

Yeah, but who cares? By the time it would be an issue, humanity's either long since found a way to clean up and eliminate nuclear waste...

You know that's crap. We can't even efficiently clean up our NON radioactive messes, and we've been making those for thousands of years.

The point is, long-lived stuff is less harmful than short-lived stuff.

[edit: above's about the former post]

[edit bis: it almost sounds like we should sit and do nothing, since it'll only make more shit]

You know that's crap. We can't even efficiently clean up our NON radioactive messes, and we've been making those for thousands of years.

I don't think it's such a difficult issue though, to get some harmful materials out of reach of humans. I don't think it sounds particularly more challenging than getting renewable energy to the same efficiency levels.

Nuclear Power dangerous. Part of the main point of it. Renewable energy, not as dangerous. Stupidity, humans are made of it. Computers, well, not as stupid, but can fail. I just say if Humanity is still around in the next 100 years, build nuclear plants on the moon. Tesla proved energy power could be transmitted over some distances wirelessly. Actually said to have burned down the power plant by doing it. If a plant were built on the moon though, it would have to be underground, lest it gets hit by a meteor and half Earths power supply goes. But water could be exposed to the vacuum of space, just enough to cool it down so it could cool down the reactor. This way if there is big boom on Moon, radiation will be several hundred thousand miles away, and Earths atmosphere filters out radiation, so no truly major prob there. But yes, the sheer amount of materials used to build it and the transport to the moon would be huge. But it seems a full proof plan so far. No cities on moon (yet), radiation separated from Earth, and one side of the moon is always facing Earth so just build the power transmitter there. Some thoughts still required here, but that's most in a nutshell...

I don't think it's such a difficult issue though, to get some harmful materials out of reach of humans. I don't think it sounds particularly more challenging than getting renewable energy to the same efficiency levels.

Cleaning up old industrial properties is fantastically expensive, and we've still not come up with a real answer to it. In comparison, efficient reneable energy is a piece of piss.

Nuclear Power dangerous. Part of the main point of it. Renewable energy, not as dangerous. Stupidity, humans are made of it. Computers, well, not as stupid, but can fail. I just say if Humanity is still around in the next 100 years, build nuclear plants on the moon. Tesla proved energy power could be transmitted over some distances wirelessly. Actually said to have burned down the power plant by doing it. If a plant were built on the moon though, it would have to be underground, lest it gets hit by a meteor and half Earths power supply goes. But water could be exposed to the vacuum of space, just enough to cool it down so it could cool down the reactor. This way if there is big boom on Moon, radiation will be several hundred thousand miles away, and Earths atmosphere filters out radiation, so no truly major prob there. But yes, the sheer amount of materials used to build it and the transport to the moon would be huge. But it seems a full proof plan so far. No cities on moon (yet), radiation separated from Earth, and one side of the moon is always facing Earth so just build the power transmitter there. Some thoughts still required here, but that's most in a nutshell...

Yoda has spoken. ;)

Nice. I have something to top you out, though. Bismuth-209 - 19,000,000,000,000,000,000 years.

You asked, I answered.

The issue is, elements that have long half-lives also have low radioactivity. No way around - radiation comes from them splitting.

I understand how radiation works.

Except it doesn't enter these supplies. And even if it somehow does, the concentrations are so small that they'll be barely above the background radiation.

Now I'm going to have to ask you for a source. Please prove that mankind can maintain these storage facilities for the lenghs of time required. I'm not even sure we can maintain the storage for a couple of half-lifes of the nastier short term stuff.

You need to remember that if large parts of the world start using nuclear as a main energy source then the amounts of waste will increase proportionally and so will the risks.

Never. Nothing is 100% safe.
It's safer than any fossil fuels - that should be enough. 99.9999% is more than enough.

I agree however you've yet to show that we can achieve that level of safety.

Yoda has spoken. ;)

Yoda was an expert on the force but knew fuck all about mass power genration.

Cleaning up old industrial properties is fantastically expensive, and we've still not come up with a real answer to it. In comparison, efficient reneable energy is a piece of piss.

Old industrial properties? We just need to remove the radioactive waste, not the whole property. Why is it so unforeseeable that in 100 thousand years time we could not have worked out a solution to it?

Old industrial properties? We just need to remove the radioactive waste, not the whole property. Why is it so unforeseeable that in 100 thousand years time we could not have worked out a solution to it?

I cite industrial properties because it's an ongoing problem. And there are still no good solutions to it, except to basically sieve the earth, repackage as much of the toxic material as we can, and bury it somewhere else - which isn't 'getting rid' of the problem at all.

Why is it hard to believe we could work out a solution in 100 thousand years? Because we're living in a mess now, and we can't work out how to clean up THIS mess (which is nothing compared to radioactive contamination), with all our modern science.

Yoda was an expert on the force but knew fuck all about mass power genration.

Idk, I bet Coruscant has a novel way of doing it, and Yoda could probably tell you alot about it...

Especially with the Jedi Archives at his disposal...

Nuclear power is currently the most viable opportunity. The Democrats are focusing on it. What's the Senator's problem?

Oh, and LAMAR! He's obviously a Headcrab.:D

You asked, I answered.
The question was really about radioactivity.


I understand how radiation works.
That's good. Should understand, then, that the dangerous ones are those with short half-lives.


Now I'm going to have to ask you for a source. Please prove that mankind can maintain these storage facilities for the lenghs of time required.
We don't need to really. Just let the high radioactives deplete themselves, and the rest gradually filter out into the global environment, where it's but an unnoticeable speck.


You need to remember that if large parts of the world start using nuclear as a main energy source then the amounts of waste will increase proportionally and so will the risks.
A tiny risk times 100 is still a tiny risk.


I agree however you've yet to show that we can achieve that level of safety.
It's not "can". We have already. Calculations for nuclear safety are made for one in a million cases, or even more. Everything there is massively overengineered. These containment buildings, if we don't blow them up intentionally, some twenty thousand years later, tourists will be visiting these things along with the Pyramids, gazing at their mysteries.

Idk, I bet Coruscant has a novel way of doing it, and Yoda could probably tell you alot about it...

Especially with the Jedi Archives at his disposal...

What Jedi Archive, Yoda lived in a swamp.

*waves hand* There was no preqel trilogy.

The wind isn't blowing....the sun isn't shining.

In which case no source of power will help, on account of the first meaning that the atmosphere is completely gone and the second meaning that the sun has collapsed into a black dwarf.

Christ, that's like arguing against nuclear power because protons will all cease to exist at some point.

In which case no source of power will help, on account of the first meaning that the atmosphere is completely gone and the second meaning that the sun has collapsed into a black dwarf.


Almost sigged. :tongue:

Why is it hard to believe we could work out a solution in 100 thousand years? Because we're living in a mess now, and we can't work out how to clean up THIS mess (which is nothing compared to radioactive contamination), with all our modern science.

We've had one hundred or so years of modern science. We will have a thousand times as many years to work out how to remove some gooey material from humans.

meaning that the sun has collapsed into a black dwarf.
That's a bit racist and more than a bit heightist.

The question was really about radioactivity.

I know, all the substances I mentioned are radioactive and have fairly serious safety requirements attached to working with them. If they were safe then why would we bother?

That's good. Should understand, then, that the dangerous ones are those with short half-lives.

Define dangerous. I'm not just thinking of the high level gamma emitters, low level emitters are dangerous but in a different way. Asbestos is usually safe when left in panels and not inhaled, we still decided to remove it from all our buildings.

We don't need to really. Just let the high radioactives deplete themselves, and the rest gradually filter out into the global environment, where it's but an unnoticeable speck.[

It's not "can". We have already. Calculations for nuclear safety are made for one in a million cases, or even more. Everything there is massively overengineered. These containment buildings, if we don't blow them up intentionally, some twenty thousand years later, tourists will be visiting these things along with the Pyramids, gazing at their mysteries.

What kind of concrete do they use?

In which case no source of power will help, on account of the first meaning that the atmosphere is completely gone and the second meaning that the sun has collapsed into a black dwarf.

Christ, that's like arguing against nuclear power because protons will all cease to exist at some point.

Now now, just because half the planet is always facing the sun at any given time is no reason to....

...on second thought, I guess it is. ;)

We've had one hundred or so years of modern science. We will have a thousand times as many years to work out how to remove some gooey material from humans.

Or to invent new gooey materials. :)

Now now, just because half the planet is always facing the sun at any given time is no reason to....

...on second thought, I guess it is. ;)

Mirrors, big ones.

Im not seeing why we cant fund more research into cleaner forms of energy, and get Nuclear Power now, its not making sense to me...
Don't you get it yet? Obviously, there is nothing in the world that does not exist now. So because we don't all have Forever-On (tm) Energy right this minute all from solar cells on our roofs, that means we never will. It is just ridiculous even to talk about "planning" because we have only the NOW, which means we must live in the NOW forever, and therefore we will never have anything other than what we have NOW. Anyone who talks about getting or making anything we don't have NOW is clearly just a hippie and probably stupid, too. People who know anything about anything know that there is no point in putting money towards researching or developing anything we don't already have. :rolleyes:

Even if you be charitable and assume he's talking about a night with extremely low winds, that still won't happen. Once solar energy is cut off, the earth begins to radiate all the stored thermal energy, heating the air close to the ground. This, of course, means that the air will rise, and winds will generate.

Taking a quick look at the amount of solar energy received by the Earth, you wouldn't even need efficient collectors to power everything. You'd just need a bunch of collectors.

Even if you be charitable and assume he's talking about a night with extremely low winds, that still won't happen. Once solar energy is cut off, the earth begins to radiate all the stored thermal energy, heating the air close to the ground. This, of course, means that the air will rise, and winds will generate.
Plus there's this thing called a "grid" -- which Vetalia seems to think is good for fossil and nuclear energy but bad for renewables, btw -- which means that, since the sun is always shining and the wind is always blowing somewhere, then energy is always being produced somewhere, and the international trade in energy can continue 24/7. Just like it does now.

I know, all the substances I mentioned are radioactive and have fairly serious safety requirements attached to working with them. If they were safe then why would we bother?
They aren't, of course, exactly safe. It's just that their radioactivity is way lower than that of 1-100 year isotopes.


Define dangerous.
Substances that could cause harm through proximity or dilute concentrations in soil.


What kind of concrete do they use?
The kinds that have little if anything in common with the foamed stuff houses are built of.

As for longevity, look at the Roman aqueducts and other structures [the Colosseum was actually deliberately attempted to be destroyed by the christians; they gave up after a while]. Concrete. An ancient form of it, no match to modern high-performance varieties.

Taking a quick look at the amount of solar energy received by the Earth, you wouldn't even need efficient collectors to power everything. You'd just need a bunch of collectors.

Installed on land already in use too; road surfaces, rooftops, parking lots etc. all can generate power. Not only by day but by night also. Plenty for residential use. Coastal power stations can provide plenty of power for industrial use.

Taking a quick look at the amount of solar energy received by the Earth, you wouldn't even need efficient collectors to power everything. You'd just need a bunch of collectors.

What gets me is, if Im not mistaken, when the sun is no longer above the collective heads of the United States, I heard from a hitherto unnamed source that it appears over this far away land across alot of water, and is shining there when its not shining here...

why cant we put solar panels in both places?

Installed on land already in use too; road surfaces, rooftops, parking lots etc. all can generate power. Not only by day but by night also. Plenty for residential use. Coastal power stations can provide plenty of power for industrial use.
I have considered installing solars on my roof once.

The cost for even the cheapest stuff was so ridiculous that at first I didn't believe it, then forgot the idea. In its whole lifetime, it wouldn't pay off one tenth of its price.

In short: It will set you back a dozen grand, and won't be able to power a kettle even when it's sunny.

I have considered installing solars on my roof once.

The cost for even the cheapest stuff was so ridiculous that at first I didn't believe it, then forgot the idea. In its whole lifetime, it wouldn't pay off one tenth of its price.

In short: It will set you back a dozen grand, and won't be able to power a kettle even when it's sunny.

When was this? Because I installed mine last year and they'll pay themselves off in ten years. In Connecticut. My house won't even be paid off by then. :tongue:

They aren't, of course, exactly safe. It's just that their radioactivity is way lower than that of 1-100 year isotopes.

As I said in an earlier post and you edited out of your reply, I'm not all that confident we can even manage to be responsible for the short half-life stuff.

Substances that could cause harm through proximity or dilute concentrations in soil.

You mean like low level emitters that can build up in a body through time?

The kinds that have little if anything in common with the foamed stuff houses are built of.

As for longevity, look at the Roman aqueducts and other structures [the Colosseum was actually deliberately attempted to be destroyed by the christians; they gave up after a while]. Concrete. An ancient form of it, no match to modern high-performance varieties.

So you don't know?

When was this? Because I installed mine last year and they'll pay themselves off in ten years. In Connecticut. My house won't even be paid off by then. :tongue:
Also, if such panels wouldn't even power a kettle, I wonder why my local utility company, NStar, is wasting its time marketing solar panels to homeowners in the Boston area, with a program that effectively makes residential buildings energy self-sufficient and buys back excess energy from the homeowners. I especially wonder why they bother since they subsidize the installation costs. You know...if they're not going to get anything from it...

When was this?
Three years ago. The lowest-cost solar panels are about 10% cheaper now. I used realistic calculations.


Because I installed mine last year and they'll pay themselves off in ten years. In Connecticut. My house won't even be paid off by then. :tongue:
What specific panel models are these? More importantly, what specific system are you using to control wiring both grid and solar power into your home power main?

What was your electric bill before, and what is it same month this year?

As I said in an earlier post and you edited out of your reply, I'm not all that confident we can even manage to be responsible for the short half-life stuff.
We don't need to be responsible. We just need to bury it. Buried, done. Especially if the burial sites aren't connected to any urban water supply, and are deeper anyway.


You mean like low level emitters that can build up in a body through time?
I mean like low level emitters, some of which can, but don't, because you'd need to gulp them intentionally to get the effect.


So you don't know?
Are you a construction-specialized materials engineer or at least an architect? Then I could look up a specific composition.

Are you a construction-specialized materials engineer or at least an architect? Then I could look up a specific composition.

Nope. But I did study aerospace engineering through a problem based learning course with a common first year shared between the mechanical, aerospace, structural and electronic disciplines.

If I don't know what you're talking about then I can easily find out.

Three years ago. The lowest-cost solar panels are about 10% cheaper now. I used realistic calculations.



What specific panel models are these? More importantly, what specific system are you using to control wiring both grid and solar power into your home power main?

What was your electric bill before, and what is it same month this year?

Ask these guys to give you an estimate; they are awesome professionals:

http://rosssolargroup.com/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/

Well, assuming you're in New York or Connecticut. Maybe they can recommend somebody for you.

My system was finished in June so I can't compare last year to this year by March's electric bill was $22. :D

Nope. But I did study aerospace engineering through a problem based learning course with a common first year shared between the mechanical, aerospace, structural and electronic disciplines.
If I don't know what you're talking about then I can easily find out.
Levelfest? Well, I am a professional naval architect, master's degree, working with systems on naval vessels for a few years by now, involving specifically structural concerns.

I don't know the specific compositions, but the tensile strength of the concrete used is around 5,000 psi, or more. More modern containments tend to have thicker walls and stronger materials. Inner liner may be epoxy or steel.



Ask these guys to give you an estimate; they are awesome professionals:
I don't think they're unbiased though.
Also, so what was your last year's bill for any other month?

Levelfest? Well, I am a professional naval architect, master's degree, working with systems on naval vessels for a few years by now, involving specifically structural concerns.

I don't know the specific compositions, but the tensile strength of the concrete used is around 5,000 psi, can be more. More modern containments tend to have thicker walls and stronger materials. Inner liner may be epoxy or steel.

Levelfest?

My degree (bachelors) is in politics, I got bored of the math in engineering around 2/3rds of the way through 2nd year. My point was that if you can provide the information then I'll be able to understand it.

I have considered installing solars on my roof once.

The cost for even the cheapest stuff was so ridiculous that at first I didn't believe it, then forgot the idea. In its whole lifetime, it wouldn't pay off one tenth of its price.

In short: It will set you back a dozen grand, and won't be able to power a kettle even when it's sunny.

You got taken for a sucker, I'm afraid. I can make a solar panel out of copper for $100, that would power a kettle. It's an interesting little weekend diversion.

You got taken for a sucker, I'm afraid. I can make a solar panel out of copper for $100, that would power a kettle. It's an interesting little weekend diversion.

Just copper? That I'd like to see. :p

Just copper? That I'd like to see. :p

The operative component is copper. The main treatment technology is heating it until an oxide forms on the surface. You can make one on your stove tonight, if you've got the components.

The operative component is copper. The main treatment technology is heating it until an oxide forms on the surface. You can make one on your stove tonight, if you've got the components.

Now I'm intrigued. Do you have a link to the process?

Now I'm intrigued. Do you have a link to the process?

http://scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/echem/echem2.html

I'm a nerd for this sort of stuff. You can make batteries with pee, too...

Levelfest?

My degree (bachelors) is in politics, I got bored of the math in engineering around 2/3rds of the way through 2nd year. My point was that if you can provide the information then I'll be able to understand it.
Well, as I've said - 4,000+ to 6,000+ psi or stronger concrete is required for these buildings. Steel for reinforcement and liner is 60,000+ to 75,000+ psi.

Wall thickness range starts at ~4 feet at the thinnest, but more commonly 6, and up to 10-12 feet in the lower section.

Inside, there is additional concrete around the reactor, and the reactor itself has steel walls at least a foot thick.
Containment buildings today may be protected by a further outer layer, the shield building, designed against external strikes. They have roughly the same wall thickness. This forms 3 or 4 layers of protection.

Well, as I've said - 4,000+ to 6,000+ psi or stronger concrete is required for these buildings. Steel for reinforcement and liner is 60,000+ to 75,000+ psi.

Wall thickness range starts at ~4 feet at the thinnest, but more commonly 6, and up to 10-12 feet in the lower section.

Inside, there is additional concrete around the reactor, and the reactor itself has steel walls at least a foot thick.
Containment buildings today may be protected by a further outer layer, the shield building, designed against external strikes. They have roughly the same wall thickness. This forms 3 or 4 layers of protection.

Waste storage, not reactor protection.

It's a given these days that the reactors are protected to an insane degree.

I can make a solar panel out of copper for $100, that would power a kettle.
"The cell produces 50 microamps at 0.25 volts. This is 0.0000125 watts."

An interesting kettle you've got there... Takes a few millenia to boil a cup of tea - for those not in a hurry!

Waste storage, not reactor protection.

It's a given these days that the reactors are protected to an insane degree.
Waste storage on-site or off-site?

On-site incorporates a somewhat lower level of protection, but it's a much smaller and less dangerous target.

Off-site, particularly permanent, often goes outright underground.

http://scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/echem/echem2.html

I'm a nerd for this sort of stuff. You can make batteries with pee, too...

Boo.

You could power a kettle with that only if you have a huge back yard and a shit load of copper.

I do like the chemistry though.

Waste storage on-site or off-site?

On-site incorporates a somewhat lower level of protection, but it's a much smaller and less dangerous target.

Off-site, particularly permanent, often goes outright underground.

I'm talking about the long term storage.

The short term stuff (less than 30 years) I don't think we have a problem with. It's that very long term I have isues with.

The whole thing about the current nuclear waste solutions that concern me is that they smack of passing on the problem to our children.

I'm talking about the long term storage.
[...]
The whole thing about the current nuclear waste solutions that concern me is that they smack of passing on the problem to our children.
The masterplan tends to be that there's no problem to be passed on. Bury and forget. If it dissolves slowly, no problem. Man-made radioactivity sources are still negligible comparable to the natural background radiation. They only present a point hazard.

As mentioned, there are more permanent solutions, like encasing it in concrete (eternal in such a use), or burying in an active trench (goes down under the ocean floor, only ever gets deeper).