- :
- Black RX-8
good point, too bad one of them isnt the president.Jack Daniels said:
Nuclear power is the way says Greenpeace founder
- Thread starter NVP5White
- Start date
I am sad to see that u put that much time and effort into something so ignorant.
First of all I actually did quote you as saying, so what. "Yucca mountain is a short term solution because there will be a time when it becomes full. So what!" Did u not say this? Because there is proof of it in my post prior to yours. Also, your little point counterpoint action is rediculous because all you are doing is taking little portions of what I actually said and translating them into your own words. People can read for themselves what I had to say without u twising it around. I would really like you to give me the sources from which u are getting your MIS-information from because I am now intrigued that there could actually be something this misleading out there. There are several things wrong with the coments u made above but I am only going to concentrate on the bigger ones for now. First of all, I never said that it was safer to store the waste on site as opposed to in Yucca, What I did say is that the TRANSPORTATION, which u have failed to notice as what I have been focusing on, is the big issue. I also have a quote from u saying "there are technologies being developed such as on-site vitrification that will essentially make transporting nuclear waste 100% safe process." So u are also denying ever saying this as well? It is one thing to lie, but come on, there is written proof that u said these things.
Also, I do have sources saying that Yucca will fill up VERY soon after it is open. In fact Yucca mountain's capacity is roughly 77,000 metric tons. We are storing over 40,000 metric tons on site as we speak. It will be a lot sooner than "hundreds and thousands of years" as you suggested. In fact Yucca is projected to fill by the year 2030. If I am doing my math correctly, then that equals about 24 years from now. Now that doesn't seem like very far from now does it. I can send u an in depth bibliography of sources that were used in my two presentations and two papers wirtten on the topic as well as several lectures in my environmental issues class. I am NOT making stuff up. I, as opposed to what u are doing, am taking an unbiased look at the big picture. Like I said before. Do your research before u make an idiot out of yourself, it's too late now but keep this in mind for later.
Simply typing in Yucca Mountain, or Nuclear energy, in the search criteria of Google is insufficient.
You are correct about the nuclear plants taking up less space and being more efficient, but the biproducts are way worse. Also, I have sources stating that there is enough wind power in North Dakota alone, to power the entire United States. The only problem woud be the high cost of transmission across the U.S. And yes, I actually would prefer to see windmills instead of nuclear reactors. I'm not sure that u are aware of this but there are actually other forms of renewable energy besides windmills. We have solar (if u want me to go into all the different types of solar I can), hydropower, geothermal, and biogass digestion. Do some more research and u will find that the number of nuclear reactors are actually declining across the world. There are a few here in the U.S. that are not very far from being shut down themselves. If they are our ultimate energy source, then why is this happening? I can argue for days about this with you but the truth of the matter is that u aren't educated enough in the matter to be trying to prove me wrong. I really don't mean this in a bad way. I am giving facts supporting my comments and u are putting words into my mouth and arguing points that I said nothing against.
First of all I actually did quote you as saying, so what. "Yucca mountain is a short term solution because there will be a time when it becomes full. So what!" Did u not say this? Because there is proof of it in my post prior to yours. Also, your little point counterpoint action is rediculous because all you are doing is taking little portions of what I actually said and translating them into your own words. People can read for themselves what I had to say without u twising it around. I would really like you to give me the sources from which u are getting your MIS-information from because I am now intrigued that there could actually be something this misleading out there. There are several things wrong with the coments u made above but I am only going to concentrate on the bigger ones for now. First of all, I never said that it was safer to store the waste on site as opposed to in Yucca, What I did say is that the TRANSPORTATION, which u have failed to notice as what I have been focusing on, is the big issue. I also have a quote from u saying "there are technologies being developed such as on-site vitrification that will essentially make transporting nuclear waste 100% safe process." So u are also denying ever saying this as well? It is one thing to lie, but come on, there is written proof that u said these things.
Also, I do have sources saying that Yucca will fill up VERY soon after it is open. In fact Yucca mountain's capacity is roughly 77,000 metric tons. We are storing over 40,000 metric tons on site as we speak. It will be a lot sooner than "hundreds and thousands of years" as you suggested. In fact Yucca is projected to fill by the year 2030. If I am doing my math correctly, then that equals about 24 years from now. Now that doesn't seem like very far from now does it. I can send u an in depth bibliography of sources that were used in my two presentations and two papers wirtten on the topic as well as several lectures in my environmental issues class. I am NOT making stuff up. I, as opposed to what u are doing, am taking an unbiased look at the big picture. Like I said before. Do your research before u make an idiot out of yourself, it's too late now but keep this in mind for later.
Simply typing in Yucca Mountain, or Nuclear energy, in the search criteria of Google is insufficient.
You are correct about the nuclear plants taking up less space and being more efficient, but the biproducts are way worse. Also, I have sources stating that there is enough wind power in North Dakota alone, to power the entire United States. The only problem woud be the high cost of transmission across the U.S. And yes, I actually would prefer to see windmills instead of nuclear reactors. I'm not sure that u are aware of this but there are actually other forms of renewable energy besides windmills. We have solar (if u want me to go into all the different types of solar I can), hydropower, geothermal, and biogass digestion. Do some more research and u will find that the number of nuclear reactors are actually declining across the world. There are a few here in the U.S. that are not very far from being shut down themselves. If they are our ultimate energy source, then why is this happening? I can argue for days about this with you but the truth of the matter is that u aren't educated enough in the matter to be trying to prove me wrong. I really don't mean this in a bad way. I am giving facts supporting my comments and u are putting words into my mouth and arguing points that I said nothing against.
Last edited:
so for all you researching ppl .. since you have so much time to argue about wording things .. how feasible is it to take the waste and dump it during our next journey to space .. we send things out as far as mars .. would that work .. how much volume/mass of waste are we talking about here .. does any of you know how much is generated at a plant .. how much would be generated to support 100% of north american energy needs .. or if this is a dead plan .. what else can we do with the waste
on the other side of the stick is their enough material - plutonium or uranium to actually have a good run with this power plants
on the other side of the stick is their enough material - plutonium or uranium to actually have a good run with this power plants
dupa12345 said:
space storage has actually been considered. One large problem is that they want to be able to have easy access to the waste in the future in case there is a need to more thouroughly utilize it. The whole easy access thing is basically what shoots down the space storage idea. Underwater storage has also been explored but the the risks are too great. Bassically geologic storage has widely been accepted as the best alternative for storage. Nuclear energy as an energy resource is not a dead plan. The waste that the U.S. has accumulated over the years is somewhere around 40,000 metric tons and keeps growing almost exponentially as we begin to require more and more energy. Yucca, if opened in 2010 as proposed, is theorized to fill by 2030. The capacity is said to be around 70,000 metric tons. So I would calcultate that at current rates and estimations we produce about 1500 metric tons of waste a year. These are very rough claculations from data I have read. It may be a good amount more or less. What to do with the waste is THE limiting factor in our potential reliance of nuclear energy. Right now The government is banking on Yucca mountain when in less than 30 years the mountain will potentially be full. What is to be done then? This is what becomes the hot button issue. I don't have the solution, but I do believe that it isn't as easy of a solution as many believe.
Last edited:
GHOSTWHISPER
Member
as a nuclear physics major i am all for more, and more nuclear power. Its quite safe now adays, and quite green, and certianly effective. Just do not let the french get involved. Worst scientists on the face of the earth
PaulMP3 said:
Tidal energy is definately an option and is being put to use in other countries as we speak. I can't remember the country off the top of my head but I know they utilize a system where they have gates that are open when the tide is coming in and they close after the water has risen to maximum levels. After the tide has gone back out it releases the contained water back out through turbines thereby producing electricity. It is quite efficient, but relies heavily on ocean patterns and also disrupts aquatic habitats and marine animal habits.
There are also hydropower sysytems that use waves to pump a sort of piston to create energy. I haven't heard much about how it works or how efficient it is though.
Last edited:
- :
- 07 CX-7 GT, 01 CBR929RR
honestly, i think we could rocket all the waste into the sun. or at least store it in orbit. i know theres some kind of space junk treaty, but seriously. with all the tons of satellites up there already, it probably looks like rush hour traffic already. now.. can any nuclear people give a reason why hurling nuke waste toward the sun wouldnt work. im not a nuclear engineer, but i know the sun would eat it without blinking. all we would have to do is hurl it in the suns direction, and the suns gravity would take over. right or wrong?
atticus1398 said:
Stole the thought right out of my head. Biggest reason I can think of opposing this solution is the fact that the fuel has to leave earth atmosphere in a rocket. I live in Orlando, and there was a rocket launch couple months back with a satalite payload. The satalite was nuclear powered. IDK how much national attention if any it got, but there was huge protest here over the launch because of the possibility of the rocket exploding after take-off, thus spreading nuclear material in the atmosphere over Florida. In short, even though the chances of the rocket exploding and the material actually being compromised inside it's protective shell or w/e were extremely small, there was huge controversy here about it. Now multiply that material x the amount we would have to send up with each rocket load to make it feasibly economical to launch each rocket (talking millions on millions of dollars per launch most likely). Talking a lot of material per rocket. If the rocket were to explode... get the idea. Until a better way is developed to get the payloads up there, doubt they'll be rocketed away.
atticus1398 said:
You are right, but transporting will again be a big concern to some people. People who are scared or don't understand will say stuff like, "Think of the consequences if one of the rockets exploded while it was carrying a lot of waste... especially if it was in the upper atmosphere."
Hell if we can't even all come to an agreement on transporting the crap across the country, then I don't see all of us EVER agreeing on blasting it out of here on a rocket. And BTW, it was brought up earlier by Buck that a terrorist could simply use a RPG to blow up one of these containers that they use, and that is quite funny to me since I have seen them in person. This is not some new thing bud... we have been trucking nuclear waste across New Mexico (from Los Alamos to Roswell) for many years now, and I think your criticism of the containers is uneducated at best. It would take a MAJOR impact, much more major than any RPG will create, to even create a pin-sized hole on one of these things.
Put at least a little faith in the designers, engineers, and scientists that will be involved in the process of moving waste to the storage facility. They are a lot smarter than you are giving them credit for.
505zoom said:
AGREED, from Sandia National Labs testing (also previously posted):
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/newsroom/videos.shtml
"A 74-ton shipping cask, carried by a cask rail car, crash into the concrete block at 81 miles per hour. The same cask and rail car were then positioned over a pool of jet fuel and subjected to an engulfing fire, much more severe than the fire that might occur in a train wreck. After 90 minutes three times the duration of current qualification test criteria surface temperatures exceeded 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit. But inside the cask, where the spent fuel rods would be contained, temperatures were below 300 degrees"
I would say that these conditions are pretty serious and most likely more severe then a direct RPG strike.
Simmer down Buckits only the future of mankind were talking about here. I know you dont prefer this format but I will press on with it because I think it is the best way for me to address your many, many questions.
First of all, I never said that it was safer to store the waste on site as opposed to in Yucca
From Buck: Yucca was decided to be the safest
So I can only assume you mean what you say when you say Yucca was the safest. You dont seriously think that keeping the waste in swimming pools is safer do you?
I also have a quote from u saying "there are technologies being developed such as on-site vitrification that will essentially make transporting nuclear waste 100% safe process." So u are also denying ever saying this as well? It is one thing to lie, but come on, there is written proof that u said these things."
Not a lie, just a fact. Below is a picture of Borosilicate glass from the first waste vitrification plant in UK in the 1960s. This block contains material chemically identical to high-level waste from reprocessing. A piece this size would contain the total high-level waste arising from nuclear electricity generation for one person throughout a normal lifetime.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/ne/ne5.htm
It seems to me that if the guy is holding high-level nuclear waste it must be in a form that is 100% safe, right? Borosilicate is a byproduct of vitrification, which can be done at the power plant and render waste 100% safe prior to transporting to Yucca.
Also, I do have sources saying that Yucca will fill up VERY soon after it is open. In fact Yucca mountain's capacity is roughly 77,000 metric tons. We are storing over 40,000 metric tons on site as we speak. It will be a lot sooner than "hundreds and thousands of years" as you suggested. In fact, Yucca is projected to fill by the year 2030. If I am doing my math correctly, then that equals about 24 years from now. Now that doesn't seem like very far from now does it."
What can I say, when you are right, you are (partially) right:
http://www.nei.org/doc.asp?catnum=2&catid=197
As of 2002, there is about 44,000 metric tons of commercial used nuclear fuel and about 12,000 metric tons of defense high-level radioactive waste awaiting disposal at Yucca Mountain. Given that, DOE expects the 70,000 metric ton political limit will not be reached until at least 2036. [However,] DOE's Environmental Impact Statement showed that the site could safely dispose of 120,000 metric tons. Some scientists believe that repository capacity could be as high as 200,000 metric tons.
So, while Yucca is only funded to a 77,000 ton capacity, it can be expanded, under current design and investigative constraints to 158% its current size. That would get us to at least 2050.
HOWEVER, my original claim did not dispute your assertion that Yucca could fill up by very soon, but rather it COULD last 500 years if we simply use the nuclear fuel more efficiently. It seems to me a no-brainer to recycle fuel a few times before it get shipped to Yucca for permanent storage, dont you agree? If we do, Yucca will NOT fill up very soon.
You are correct about the nuclear plants taking up less space and being more efficient
Thanks.
but the byproducts are way worse.
Yes, but for a short period of time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
After 40 years its radioactivity drops by 99.9%
"Also, I have sources stating that there is enough wind power in North Dakota alone, to power the entire United States."
What would North Dakotans have to say about this? Do you think theyd mind the new landscape
The only problem would be the high cost of transmission across the U.S.
And the fact that even in ND the wind doesnt blow every day. What would we do then? Use solar ovens to cook our ramens and those bicycle generators to power our connection to the intarnets?
The fact of the matter is there is now way mankind has devised to transmit that kind of power over long distances.
Do some more research and u will find that the number of nuclear reactors are actually declining across the world."
Decrease in plants = nuclear power is bad? This is an illogical argument against nuclear.
First of all, I never said that it was safer to store the waste on site as opposed to in Yucca
From Buck: Yucca was decided to be the safest
So I can only assume you mean what you say when you say Yucca was the safest. You dont seriously think that keeping the waste in swimming pools is safer do you?
I also have a quote from u saying "there are technologies being developed such as on-site vitrification that will essentially make transporting nuclear waste 100% safe process." So u are also denying ever saying this as well? It is one thing to lie, but come on, there is written proof that u said these things."
Not a lie, just a fact. Below is a picture of Borosilicate glass from the first waste vitrification plant in UK in the 1960s. This block contains material chemically identical to high-level waste from reprocessing. A piece this size would contain the total high-level waste arising from nuclear electricity generation for one person throughout a normal lifetime.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/ne/ne5.htm
It seems to me that if the guy is holding high-level nuclear waste it must be in a form that is 100% safe, right? Borosilicate is a byproduct of vitrification, which can be done at the power plant and render waste 100% safe prior to transporting to Yucca.
Also, I do have sources saying that Yucca will fill up VERY soon after it is open. In fact Yucca mountain's capacity is roughly 77,000 metric tons. We are storing over 40,000 metric tons on site as we speak. It will be a lot sooner than "hundreds and thousands of years" as you suggested. In fact, Yucca is projected to fill by the year 2030. If I am doing my math correctly, then that equals about 24 years from now. Now that doesn't seem like very far from now does it."
What can I say, when you are right, you are (partially) right:
http://www.nei.org/doc.asp?catnum=2&catid=197
As of 2002, there is about 44,000 metric tons of commercial used nuclear fuel and about 12,000 metric tons of defense high-level radioactive waste awaiting disposal at Yucca Mountain. Given that, DOE expects the 70,000 metric ton political limit will not be reached until at least 2036. [However,] DOE's Environmental Impact Statement showed that the site could safely dispose of 120,000 metric tons. Some scientists believe that repository capacity could be as high as 200,000 metric tons.
So, while Yucca is only funded to a 77,000 ton capacity, it can be expanded, under current design and investigative constraints to 158% its current size. That would get us to at least 2050.
HOWEVER, my original claim did not dispute your assertion that Yucca could fill up by very soon, but rather it COULD last 500 years if we simply use the nuclear fuel more efficiently. It seems to me a no-brainer to recycle fuel a few times before it get shipped to Yucca for permanent storage, dont you agree? If we do, Yucca will NOT fill up very soon.
You are correct about the nuclear plants taking up less space and being more efficient
Thanks.
but the byproducts are way worse.
Yes, but for a short period of time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
After 40 years its radioactivity drops by 99.9%
"Also, I have sources stating that there is enough wind power in North Dakota alone, to power the entire United States."
What would North Dakotans have to say about this? Do you think theyd mind the new landscape
The only problem would be the high cost of transmission across the U.S.
And the fact that even in ND the wind doesnt blow every day. What would we do then? Use solar ovens to cook our ramens and those bicycle generators to power our connection to the intarnets?
The fact of the matter is there is now way mankind has devised to transmit that kind of power over long distances.
Do some more research and u will find that the number of nuclear reactors are actually declining across the world."
Decrease in plants = nuclear power is bad? This is an illogical argument against nuclear.
And yet u are still dwelling on the mis-interpretation that I am against Nuclear power. I AM NOT AGAINST IT. All I am saying is that many people read a newspaper aticle and automatically ask, well why aren't we relying on this. Also, I am glad that u are expanding your knowledge on the matter as we dicuss it. You are not proving any of my comments wrong. You are just mis-interpreting them. I never said that I don't trust the scientists that are working on the project. Hell, I personally talked to some of them and discussed what they were doing in person. I am just a little wheary on the government's interpretation of information on very important matters such as this. How would all of the North Dakotan's feel about windmills all over their state? Well I can only assume they would feel the same way that us Nevadan's feel about storing thousands of tons of highly toxic waste just outside of town and having nuclear waste being transported through our towns. But that is just an assumption.
Also, I am aware that the Yucca mountain capacity data I gave is not exact. I have seen several different sources stating different stuff. I gave a ballpark estimate from all of the sources I have seen, whereas you are relying on one source for your information(thumb) At no point did I ever say that recycling the fuel would not be a good idea. If we can find better ways to manage the nuclear energy and its waste then hell yeah. U can't rely nor base decisions on what is proposed for the future. You need to look at what is going on presently. And AT THE CURRENT RATE, the waste would be unsustainable.
The fact that the wind doesn't blow everyday isn't necessarily a deciding factor in wind power, have some faith in the research that has been done....have u heard of stored energy? And finally in my comment about declining nuclear power plants I was trying to convey the fact that if It was such a miracle source of energy then why isn't the industry growing?
And you are right it is only the future of mankind we are talking about here. So Why not look at all the possible pros and cons of the situation instead of just relying on the pros. After all You, hopefully, can agree that there is room for error.
Also, I am aware that the Yucca mountain capacity data I gave is not exact. I have seen several different sources stating different stuff. I gave a ballpark estimate from all of the sources I have seen, whereas you are relying on one source for your information(thumb) At no point did I ever say that recycling the fuel would not be a good idea. If we can find better ways to manage the nuclear energy and its waste then hell yeah. U can't rely nor base decisions on what is proposed for the future. You need to look at what is going on presently. And AT THE CURRENT RATE, the waste would be unsustainable.
The fact that the wind doesn't blow everyday isn't necessarily a deciding factor in wind power, have some faith in the research that has been done....have u heard of stored energy? And finally in my comment about declining nuclear power plants I was trying to convey the fact that if It was such a miracle source of energy then why isn't the industry growing?
And you are right it is only the future of mankind we are talking about here. So Why not look at all the possible pros and cons of the situation instead of just relying on the pros. After all You, hopefully, can agree that there is room for error.
505zoom said:
Really? This is not new? huh....who woulda thunk!
There was no outright crticism of the containers. Like I have said, This is not 100% safe! It is impossible to get that across aparently. To call me uneducated on the matter is hilarious because simply put I have seen more and been a lot more involved in this matter than you. Yes we have been transporting waste, but not even close to the magnitude that would take place if this goes through. Im not saying that these things are going to crack open if they fall off the truck. Also, my RPG comment was not literal, It was meant to portray the many possibilities that could take place. There are bombs that are capable of easily disrupting the casks. They aren't made out of some magical super indestructable material. They are man made metal. This is hilarious. People puting this much trust in this going through with out a hitch amazes me. I mean it is definately possible. Im not saying if we do it there will definatley be an accident. Think about The titanic, The supposed "unsinkable ship" holy s*** bat man it sunk...weird!
You guys need to quit critisizing me using your armchair scientific opinions.
(hand)
I am not saying that I have a better solution. It just amazes me that people that are ignorant about this feel like they need to try and prove me wrong. I know the possibilities. I know how it will be transported ( I too have personally seen the casks). I know what goes into a project of this magnitude. The scientist I talked to at Yucca even said that there are inherent dangers so u can't sit here and tell me there isn't. I realize it is our best option for now, but for now only. I am not in any way implying that the people involved in the studies or transportation are shmucks. But I am being realistic. So, ok suppose transport goes off without a hitch, which I will go on record saying that there is a very good chance it would, then Yucca fills, and we are back to square one. All I ever intended to get across was that this is not a fool proof system. It has many flaws that many overlook when stating their opinion. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but at least make sure u know the whole story before u bank on it.
I take this more personal than most of you because, unlike most of you, I, along with thousands of other Nevadans, will be at the s*** end of the mistake. So If anyone thinks that any argument against this is un-educated and ignorant I am calling bulls***. There is every reason in the world to be skeptical, Better that then being nieve and then if something goes wrong sayin, oh s***, I would have never saw that coming.
Sorry if my words get heated. I mean no disrespect to anyone or their opinions, just stating mine
I am not saying that I have a better solution. It just amazes me that people that are ignorant about this feel like they need to try and prove me wrong. I know the possibilities. I know how it will be transported ( I too have personally seen the casks). I know what goes into a project of this magnitude. The scientist I talked to at Yucca even said that there are inherent dangers so u can't sit here and tell me there isn't. I realize it is our best option for now, but for now only. I am not in any way implying that the people involved in the studies or transportation are shmucks. But I am being realistic. So, ok suppose transport goes off without a hitch, which I will go on record saying that there is a very good chance it would, then Yucca fills, and we are back to square one. All I ever intended to get across was that this is not a fool proof system. It has many flaws that many overlook when stating their opinion. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but at least make sure u know the whole story before u bank on it.
I take this more personal than most of you because, unlike most of you, I, along with thousands of other Nevadans, will be at the s*** end of the mistake. So If anyone thinks that any argument against this is un-educated and ignorant I am calling bulls***. There is every reason in the world to be skeptical, Better that then being nieve and then if something goes wrong sayin, oh s***, I would have never saw that coming.
Sorry if my words get heated. I mean no disrespect to anyone or their opinions, just stating mine
Last edited:
