So you want to take the world backwards, when everyone wants to go forwards.

I don’t want to get into an angry argument (maybe this is the wrong thread to post on :wink:) but…

It strikes me that this statement RealMan made is perhaps the fundamental problem we as a species are facing. The metaphor of us moving forward, further along a line of ‘development’ towards some vague and perpetually distant future, things constantly improving, is, I suggest, deeply flawed.

The notions of growth, progress and development will never allow us to stop destroying the planet, never allow us to maintain a population we can feed and house. I wonder if we have to take a step back and reconsider our society.

Just to balance how power generation can release radioactive elements in to the enviroment, it should be known that coal fired power stations pump out radiation into the atmosphere in the form of Uranium (incl U-235) and Thorium.

If we’re not progressing, what is the point? Progression is what makes us human.

Maybe this planet is only temporary. Its going to die eventually no matter what we do. If we could move to another planet and have a better way of life, would we?

Define “progression”.

Raping the planet, living way beyond the means that the planet has to support us in some forlorn pursuit of utopia?

The problem here is that there is no one solution to the impending energy crisis. Politicians in particular are far too short sighted, only interested in the next election, people in general are too selfish, only interested in being able to power their 60″ plasma and the power shower, stuff the rest of the world.

Huge costly power stations generating toxic waste which will remain toxic for the next 10000 years, the energy generated then transported via a wasteful grid system is not the sole answer – it may well be PART of the answer but personally I think far more needs to be done to generate electricity locally be it solar panels, wind, hydro or whatever, get to a time when the grid tops up your own energy, not covers the whole lot. It’d certainly make people think a bit more about their waste and that will cut emissions/pollution straight away.

This was a massive bugbear for me during my time in the chemical industry when waste was rife – tens of thousands of litres of perfectly good drinking water down the drain every single day, massive power usage and not a self-generated watt in sight even though the area was perfect for at least SOME harnessing of wind/solar.

Huge costly power stations generating toxic waste which will remain toxic for the next 10000 years

does it matter that nuke waste stays toxic for that long?

I have a shotgun in the gun safe behind me, that will stay deadly for many years too, as long as no one does anything silly with it – it’ll only kill what I want it to kill [clays]

I see lots of the usual myths and alarmist statements about nuclear being repeated on here. Take a look at David Mackay’s calculations if you want a reasonably even-handed summary. In particular look at his figures for deaths-per-Magawatt hour and consider how dangerous some of our existing and proposed energy sources are.

If you’re worried about dirty bombs, a biological one is far more scary than a nuclear one and easier to make. If you’re worried about water being poisoned by largely insoluble nuclear waste then best not to think about some of the soluble things that could be put in your water supply. If you’re worried about nuclear waste best not to think about the piles of chemical waste lying around. Saying we all need to consume less is simplistic and not something I’d really be happy saying to someone in India with little food no electricity supply

Some of the fission reactor technologies being researched such as liquid flouride thorium reactors can be made in small scales and don’t produce the same long-lived isotopes as existing PWRs. At the moment the big corporations that make reactors won’t want to make these as they have existing investments to leverage but I expect we’ll be buying these from India soon – either that or we’ll have to beef up the cables to France and buy their nuclear-generated electricity.

Flux capacitor.

does it matter that nuke waste stays toxic for that long?

see the shotgun is dangerous if triggered. Radiation is dangerous and needs to be stored to not kill you as it is there is a huge difference. If you doubt this why not put some high level radiactive waste in the cupboard and let us know how that works out for you.

Saying we all need to consume less is simplistic and not something I’d really be happy saying to someone in India with little food no electricity supply

Simplistic but true and a message for the west not the Indians surely.
Yes other things are dangerous too I dont think anyone is denying that are they?

No, but most people are implying that nuclear waste is going to kill us all. Or at least suggesting that we don’t know what to do with it all.

There have been nuclear plants going for years now, and we’ve been dealing with the waste so far.

The shotgun metaphor does make sense. If radioactive waste is stored securely, it doesn’t pose a threat to anyone.

run me by the secure storage method again then
My understanding is

The major problem of nuclear waste is what to do with it. In fact, one of the biggest (and perhaps the single biggest) expenses of the nuclear power industry could eventually be the storage of nuclear waste. Currently there are several ways in which nuclear waste is stored. Most of these methods are temporary. In most cases a viable long-term solution for waste storage has yet to be found. This is because the time period for storage is so incredibly long, on the order of thousands of years.

Seripously what is the secure long term method you talk of?

Overallif nothing goes wronh ot is safe but if if does go wrong we are in for serious trouble for generations in the area affected

why not help them out and store some at yours – as it is safe should be a piece of pi55 to get permission to keep it eh

The shotgun comparison is poor we can store it easily and render it inert easily with radioactive waste we cannot do the later and we have no method for the former

Arguing against the use of nuclear power by using the risk of waste management is completely pointless. Its like arguing against the use of food because it costs money. There will come a time when there is no choice.

You getting off on daft anologies or something?
WTF are you saying
It is like saying we can generate great power with this but it leaves a dangerous waste that we have no theoretical way of storing for the thousands of years required and the potential consequences of it leaking are catastrophic.
Can you counter this with actual real soloutions fir storage rather than increasingly odd anologies?
The TINA argument is specious
There
Is
No
Altenrative

You could’ve fixed “alternative” when you fixed “no” 😉

We do have ways of storing it for thousands of years.

It sounds odd, but given money and time there will be ways to develop getting rid of it permanently, if doing so is thought to be worth it.

The potential of it leaking being described as catastrophic is really overcooking it, its happened before quite a few times when it wasn’t stored properly, and I’m not quite sure, but I think loads of it has been dumped into the sea. But you probably have never heard of these incidents, because not enough harm was called for anyone to care that much.

And if you do have an alternative, other then TJs “lets go back to the dark ages” idea, let the world know.

We do have ways of storing it for thousands of years.

Really? Ones that are safe and secure? This is news to me, any further info?

It sounds odd, but given money and time there will be ways to develop getting rid of it permanently, if doing so is thought to be worth it.

But if it’s going to cost that much and take so long it’s not going to happen is it? Just be cheaper to use alternatives now surely?

The potential of it leaking being described as catastrophic is really overcooking it, its happened before quite a few times when it wasn’t stored properly, and I’m not quite sure, but I think loads of it has been dumped into the sea. But you probably have never heard of these incidents, because not enough harm was called for anyone to care that much.

This is probably because the long term effects of radioactive pollution are difficult to predict. Not to mention the polictical sensitivities of nuclear waste loss. The publicity is likely to be minimal and hushed up asap. Look how long it took for Windscale, Three Mile Island and even Chernobyl to hit the press.

And if you do have an alternative, other then TJs “lets go back to the dark ages” idea, let the world know.

There isn’t an alternative. But the “back to the dark ages” idea is reducto ad absurdum. Worthy of the Daily Mail-esque tabloid scaremongering only. I expected more from STW.

So, because there hasn’t been a catastrophic accident so far, everything is hunky-dory?

You sound like the man who jumped off the skyscraper and could be heard saying, as he went past each floor, “So far, so good….”

But if it’s going to coat that much and take so long its not going to happen is it?

Could I get next weeks lottery numbers with that as well? 😀

Really? Ones ta are safe and secure? This is news to me, any further info?

We have had ways of storing it for decades, and ways of transporting it, both of which are safe. Therefore we have ways of keeping it safe for an infinite amount of time, as long as it is maintained and properly looked after.

Conjecture, noun, verb, -tured, -turing.

This is probably because the long term effects of radioactive pollution are difficult to predict. Not to mention the polictical sensitivities of nuclear waste loss. The publicity is likely to be minimal and hushed up asap. Look how long it took for Windscale, Three Mile Island and even Chernobyl to hit the press.

😀

So, because there hasn’t been a catastrophic accident so far, everything is hunky-dory?

Well with the ways the Russians have been storing it in the past, and the ways others have stored it before they knew about the possible dangers it posed, and still nothing truly apocalyptic happening, then yes, I would say that with safer methods of storing it there should be even less incidents.

To go with your falling man analogy, maybe its you who sounds like the man who puts his hand into a bowl of warm water, sees he doesn’t burn himself, adds some cold water, then wonders if he’s going to burn himself when he puts his hand back in.

We have had ways of storing it for decades, and ways of transporting it, both of which are safe. Therefore we have ways of keeping it safe for an infinite amount of time, as long as it is maintained and properly looked after.

Conjecture, noun, verb, -tured, -turing.

Fair enough. You’ve got more faith in the appropriate authorities doing their job for several thousand years than I have. I can’t think of an example in history that withstands this period of time…

😀

❓

Why does no one ever use the preview button..

Fair enough. You’ve got more faith in the appropriate authorities doing their job for several thousand years than I have. I can’t think of an example in history that withstands this period of time…

There will be incidents, that’s a statistical certainty. But they will be few and hopefully well managed.

And in a few centuries we should have cracked efficient fusion, and then we won’t have to store any more waste, so we can either get rid of it into space, and never have to worry about it, or store in in mile thick concrete bunkers 10 miles underground or whatever so we don’t have to worry about it.

Sorry, not as forum savvy as many!

Watched a program years ago and scientist were discussing ways on how to store nuclear waste and developing signs to warn people. They even went as far as trying to develop the signs so that aliens could understand them 😯

They even went as far as trying to develop the signs so that aliens could understand them

Well 20,000 years into the future, and we will be aliens.

Ah, the semi-environmentalist. Likes genetically modified living but not nuclear. Maybe because you work in GM? Junkyard, lets hear your ideas rather than rubbishing others.
I watched the doc and debate last night and there were some very valid points in both. Monbiot came across as a complete idiot kept banging on about corporate this and that. FOTE and GP made some very well researched and valid arguments. Look, nuclear isn’t the answer to all of our problems but it is the only SHORT TERM answer we have if we want to stop burning carbons for energy, no question. I am confident that renewables will be able to eventually but not just yet.
Energy aside, I personally think the way forward for environmentalism is for it to embrace industry and for industry to embrace it. I think that the face of environmentalism suffers )or has suffered) from the previous knee-jerk and often misinformed reactions. This could be stopped by inclusion of all parties in discussions of technology and help everyone to make more informed decisions and not the kind of sh1t spouted by monbiot. Let us also not forget that environmentalism is about preserving our environment to future generations and not just about satisfying our energy requirements. Is installing giant mechanical wind turbines doing that? I don’t think so and I think that our grandchildren will be ripping them all out and wondering why we wasted time and money on them.
EDIT; Teej, I just don’t think that buring carbons to replace buring fossilised carbons is a sustainable approach. Given time, I just think that the ingenuity of our race will come up with a better solution

It was based on that we won’t be around to tell them of the dangers 🙁

There will be incidents, that’s a statistical certainty. But they will be few and hopefully well managed.

And in a few centuries we should have cracked efficient fusion, and then we won’t have to store any more waste, so we can either get rid of it into space, and never have to worry about it, or store in in mile thick concrete bunkers 10 miles underground or whatever so we don’t have to worry about it.

I love you certainty! I really hope you’re right, because I suspect the majority of people in Britain think along the same lines as you.

I suppose I’m just too cautious for this option to be considered personally satisfactory. This and the fact that I believe there is so much wastage of energy that a fullscale efficiency drive could reasonably reduce consumption to levels that would enable us to maintain a sufficient standard of living (not wearing hair shirts and living in caves I hasten to add!), while utilising the myriad of renewables available to us (particularly an excellent island location like Britain).

I just can’t see nuclear energy as anything except a sop to our collective vanity and love of cheap energy. I fully accept I may be hypocritical by typing this too!

We do have ways of storing it for thousands of years.

You keep saying this but , despite repeated challenges, you never say what they are

The potential of it leaking being described as catastrophic is really overcooking it

Yes good point the stuff is safe why are we worrying about it ? 🙄

Therefore we have ways of keeping it safe for an infinite amount of time, as long as it is maintained and properly looked after.

it dies not follow that becausey ou can store something short term you can do it long term does it? I can place my hand ion a fire for a short period but long term it burns for example – you seem to like odd anologies does that help 😉
Quote]Why does no one ever use the preview button[/quote]
I do i am just sh1t at it :oops
Intentional for once

So you plan on changing human nature, rather then just living with a small risk of radioactive poisoning.

Its not hard to imagine energy rationing killing off science as well, which of course leads to zero progression. So we will be stuck living off tidal, solar, wave, etc. in our energy efficient houses forever.

Junkyard I have already answered those questions, you can re read what I’ve written, or maybe just accept that you can’t understand.

it dies not follow that becausey ou can store something short term you can do it long term does it?

Yes, it does. I would say especially so in radioactive cases as the material gets less dangerous with time.

Yes good point the stuff is safe why are we worrying about it

To go from saying that “catastrophic” is overcooking it, to that, is just stupid. I hope you don’t expect me to reply to that properly..?

Junky, you seem to have forgotten something about radioactive waste – essentially, we dug it up in the first place!

See, millions of years that dangerous radioactive ore sat in the earths crust without anything nasty happening!

all we need to do is drop it through the crust into the molten rock beneath, and it returns to whence it came!

job jobbed!

So you plan on changing human nature, rather then just living with a small risk of radioactive poisoning.

Its not hard to imagine energy rationing killing off science as well, which of course leads to zero progression. So we will be stuck living off tidal, solar, wave, etc. in our energy efficient houses forever.

Not sure who this was aimed at.

Why does human nature have to change?

Energy rationing doesn’t have to mean that all progress is shelved. Just inefficient use of energy. Stuff like poor insulation in peoples houses, losses through an inefficient delivery network (incidentally reduced significantly by local microgeneration: You don’t have to move the energy from generation point to use) these things all add up. Energy efficiency doesn’t mean scientific progress stagnation, the development of the ICE (potentially ironically) is proof of this!

There’s always ways around the problems the conservatives (with a little “c”) put forward!

Whoa, we can’t ignore the dangers associated in storing this sh1t.
Nuclear should only be used as a short term bridge, we cannot plan to try to store and secure this waste for ever and ever. With the half-life of the poison we’re talking about; we’ll run out of land mass in a (relatively) short time.

Why does human nature have to change?

Because it is key. We are wasteful at best and in part I agree with some of TJs ideas we do need to reduce BUT we need to do it slowly. Some can be achieved by initiatives (insulation ets) but this will not make the changes we need. We (me included) need to think before we hit a switch or dial and be aware of the consequences.

Zulu-Eleven – Member
Junky, you seem to have forgotten something about radioactive waste – essentially, we dug it up in the first place!

See, millions of years that dangerous radioactive ore sat in the earths crust without anything nasty happening!

all we need to do is drop it through the crust into the molten rock beneath, and it returns to whence it came!

job jobbed!

Oh dear.

With the half-life of the poison we’re talking about; we’ll run out of land mass in a (relatively) short time.

Is this based on anything, or just guessing? I am unaware of how much we would go through to provide the energy we need, so I am seriously curious. I wouldn’t have thought it would be anywhere NEAR as much as to even come close to posing a space issue.

When people are told they can only watch tv for x hours a day, how do you think they will feel when they find out how much energy places like CERN are using. Governments don’t like science much as it is, turn the people against it too and you will kill it off.

Why does human nature have to change?

Because it is key. We are wasteful at best and in part I agree with some of TJs ideas we do need to reduce BUT we need to do it slowly. Some can be achieved by initiatives (insulation ets) but this will not make the changes we need. We (me included) need to think before we hit a switch or dial and be aware of the consequences.

Ah right. Sorry I thought RealMan was referring to our (humankind) urge to progress. I don’t think we are wasteful at best, there are numerous examples globally of humans functioning vey well efficiently. We’ve just been lulled into this all encompassing consumerism in the “advanced” West.

You’re right though about major behaviour change being required.

Ok, how much waste would you associate with 10 yrs of nuclear energy usage?
Quite a small amount.
100yrs?
More.
1000 yrs?
Lots and lots, considering all of the nations will be using it or need to in order to make any kind of difference. And how secure do you think places like Somalia(which is completely lawless) will store their waste? This is big picture remember and the UK accounts for .0something% of global emissions. I’m not pro or con nuclear but there are questions that need to be asked for it to make a difference.

there are numerous examples globally of humans functioning vey well efficiently.

Care to volunteer an example? At least one where natural resources haven’t blessed an nation with endless resource? ie could be applied here or anywhere

Come on then Druidh… can you actually pick pick holes in the concept of disposal via burial in a fast flowing subduction zone! 🙄

Because theres all sorts of credible proponents of the idea!

Nope, you just decided to go for the knee jerk reaction didn’t you? 🙄

I suggest you go away and google it, then come back with a more realistic argument than “oh dear”!

Junkyard I have already answered those questions, you can re read what I’ve written, or maybe just accept that you can’t understand

No you have not 🙄 – if you want to play the smartarse card in this situation better to quote where you have done this in your posts and then asked if I could read – try it with your “answers”.
Fatboy dim- Could we not save momey and throw it into a volcano that was erupting ? job jobbed but cheaper?

Zulu-Eleven – I suggest you try to work out the volume of nuclear waste produced vs. the amount of radioactive material dug up. I think you’ll find it’s quite a lot more – and a lot more deadly.

Duh junky – Volcanoes are going up, subduction zones are going down! 😆

Stalactites, Stalagmites, thats how I remember it

I suggest you try to work out the volume of nuclear waste produced vs. the amount of radioactive material dug up. I think you’ll find it’s quite a lot more – and a lot more deadly.

Think about that for a moment druid, just think about that!

your calculation is that the volume of radioactive ore, that gets refined and processed, is lower than the volume of processed, concentrated radioactive waste… let alone the fact that your claim would be against the first law of thermodynamics!

Upcoming reactor designs based on the fast breeder model are far more efficient with fuel and produce waste that doesn’t contain transuranic isotopes. The waste produced has short half-lives and is only dangerous in the order of decades.

It’s much easier to attack a straw man though.

Care to volunteer an example? At least one where natural resources haven’t blessed an nation with endless resource? ie could be applied here or anywhere

Well, if you going to put caveats in, then of course there aren’t going to be any examples! It’s capitalist nature to exploit all exploitable resources, and as very few other systems have functioned for anything as long and as wide ranging then we don’t really have much of precedent to choose from!

However, human nature doesn’t have to be fully capitalist. No reason why a social and environmental agenda can’t be included, and in some of the smaller socieites I’m sure it is.

When people are told they can only watch tv for x hours a day, how do you think they will feel when they find out how much energy places like CERN are using. Governments don’t like science much as it is, turn the people against it too and you will kill it off.

Won’t happen. People will be charged to watch TV and if they can’t afford it, they won’t. The only people who will compare the two are the tabloids, just like they already have done over the past year or so given the publicity CERN have generated (excuse the pun).