let alone the fact that your claim would be against the first law of thermodynamics!

Wouldn’t that be mass, rather than volume? If the ore was solid, and the waste was gas, then the former could have a much smaller volume that the latter.

double post error

Fatboy dim do you need a 😉 to get sarcasm I am suggesting throwing nuclear waste into an active volcanos does that sound like i may actually think we should do this?
So sub means down WOW thanks
Did you get that one?

Whats that Junky? sarcasm?

So, your point is now that you agree we shouldn’t throw it into volcanos, but you also accept that since the radioactive waste originated from stuff we dug up in rock formations that formed millions of years ago, returning it to form new rock formations is somehow unreasonable?

Genuine LOL
I misunderstimated you with dim didnt I – for clarity NO SARCASM I MEAN THAT

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.

Is this like when they first invented nuclear power and told us electricity was going to be free because it’s so efficient?

misunderstimated

So, Junky, quite specifically, your use of that word was meant *without* Scarcasm 😯

Is this like when they first invented nuclear power and told us electricity was going to be free because it’s so efficient?

Nope, there are plenty of working examples of breeder reactors.

So what’s wrong with coal and/or gas?

Nuclear waste can be safely stored in deep mines below the water table. Usually dug into non-permeable rock, if it does leak it’s not an issue. Modern storage is not a metal barrel stacked in a corner, but a highly scientific method of rendering the waste safe for it’s lifetime.

zulu – do you understand basic physics? Nuclear power stations create radioactive isotopes. Hence there is far more volume and toxicity in the stuff that comes out of the power stations than goes into them.

Very basic and simple stuff.

Tree – where and when? its not been done yet

How was the foraging in the woods for fuel this morning TJ?
Did you get enough to keep you going through the day?

😉

Hence there is far more volume and toxicity in the stuff that comes out of the power stations than goes into them.

TJ, where do they find Uranium?

They dig it up from the ground, don’t they… been safe there for millions of years hasn’t it…

fatboy dim misunderestimate- a made up “Bushism” word to mean seriously under estimate. I suppose you could interpret it as you are not as dim as I thought but in order to do that you would need to be even more dim than I thought.
Ooh right now I see what happened there … bless.

RealMan – Member

TJ you really should stop making up facts lol, cause they are usually wrong.

Capital costs (including waste disposal and decommissioning costs for nuclear energy)

Part of the costs factored into the final results I was talking of.

Put your money where you mouth is. Lets see you figures then. I am not making stuff up on this at all. Nuclear is far more expensive if you take the cost per unit generated and include all the decommissioning and storage of waste costs

No junky – you specifically stated that you were not using sarcasm in your statement above, so, if you were not using sarcasm, then your use use of the word misunderstimated (nb. not the word misunderestimate as used by George Bush Jr) therefore has to be have been used deliberately and seriously!

TJ, where do they find Uranium?

They dig it up from the ground, don’t they… been safe there for millions of years hasn’t it…
Yes. However that is not the waste products. Go learn some basic physics. Plutonium and similar stuff is far more toxic than uranium .

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

High level waste (HLW) is produced by nuclear reactors. It contains fission products and transuranic elements generated in the reactor core. It is highly radioactive and often thermally hot. HLW accounts for over 95% of the total radioactivity produced in the process of nuclear electricity generation. The amount of HLW worldwide is currently increasing by about 12,000 metric tons every year, which is the equivalent to about 100 double-decker buses or a two-story structure with a footprint the size of a basketball court.[16] A 1000-MWe nuclear power plant produces about 27 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel (unreprocessed) every year.[17]

(nb. not the word misunderestimate as used by George Bush Jr)

❓

Bush said

“They misunderestimated me.”
Bentonville, Arkansas, 6 November, 2000

Oh deary me …i seem to consistently misunderestimate [ intentional for comedic effect] you dont I 😉

Realman – (remembering your large pinch of salt)read this greenpeace report for some understanding of how the figures are manipulated to make nukes seem cost effective. Please also expalin why we have paid a nuclear levy supposedly to cover the cost of waste disposal and why not one single nuclear power station has been buiklt without massive subsidy and / or the decommissioning / waste storge costs being absorbed by governments

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/france/presse/dossiers-documents/les-co-ts-reels-du-nucleaire.pdf

Jesus TJ – a whole basketball court full of the stuff… before reprocessing, wow! You’ve clearly never been down a salt mine and seen how big the caverns are – and can you quantify “more toxic” please? more toxic if you eat it, more toxic if you put it in a glass of water… more toxic if its bonded into in a lump of vitrified glass

zulu. Stop digging holes for yourself and have a read about plutonium and the other transuranic elements.

Your ignorance and stupidity is astounding.

Junky, sit down read your post at the top of the page again – you used the word misunderstimated, not misunderestimated

note the missing letter in the middle

so, your attempted comedic use of a made up word was so inept and incompetent, that you misspelt it, so, basically, you’re even more of a spakka than George Bush Jr, and the best bit is you cant even claim you were being sarcastic when you used it, because you specifically stated that you were not

By the way, if anyones wondering why Junky is using the term “fatboy dim”, you might want to read his little tantrum and subsequent complete and utter pwning over his reaction to being called junky for an explanation:

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/cuts-union-knee-jerk-response-or-last-line-of-defence-against-the-torries/page/5#post-1807611

Your ignorance and stupidity is astounding.

good one TJ – may I refer you to page on of the thread, where you were rumbled once again:

TJ, have you actually got any knowledge or experience of what you’re talking about or are you just recycling stuff you’ve read?

Can you answer that question for Backhander please, as you seem to have avoided it so far! 😉

Zulu-Eleven – Member
So, your point is now that you agree we shouldn’t throw it into volcanos, but you also accept that since the radioactive waste originated from stuff we dug up in rock formations that formed millions of years ago, returning it to form new rock formations is somehow unreasonable?

Shows your ignorance. High level waste from fission reactors is not found in nature. is not dug up, is far more toxic, is a much greater amount.

Thats what nuclear fission does – it creates new compounds which are more radioactive than the fuel.

TJ – Hence my use of the words “originated from stuff we dug up” rather than using only the words “dug up” 🙄

Now, can you answer Backhanders question from page one please?

Hence my words “your ignorance and stupidity is astounding.”

Sorry TJ, is that in answer to Backhanders original question?

Lets ask it again just for fun:

TJ, have you actually got any knowledge or experience of what you’re talking about or are you just recycling stuff you’ve read?

Even if we do eventually go nuke the National Grid will have fallen over before they’re finished.

Can you read?

#
TandemJeremy – Member

Backhander – its secondhand knowledge
Posted 14 hours ago #

Clearly not

Now Zulu please explain how the transuranic elements in high level waste are equivalent to the ores dug out of the ground as you tried to claim. Or are you just spouting ignorant drivel?

TJ, however unfortunately, as so often, your answer back then sideswiped the question

can you clarify your definition of “secondhand knowledge” please

is that knowledge that you have gained through personal communication with people who had direct knowledge or experience of the subject, or is it “secondhand knowlege” in the form of, well, erm, just recycling stuff you’ve read

I think we all know the answer to that don’t we TJ 😉

Of course the argument is that the “Transuranic elements” in high level waste are all associated breakdown products of Uranium, but the reason they’re not naturally occurring now is due to their half life, and to the fact that any atoms of these elements that were present at the Earth’s formation, have long since decayed

We made the mistake of lumping nuclear energy in with nuclear weapons, as if all things nuclear were evil. I think that’s as big a mistake as if you lumped nuclear medicine in with nuclear weapons.
Patrick Moore,
former Director of Greenpeace International

TJ, I’m not going to read a 5 year old 4 thousand page pdf, I’m sorry.

Just because Zulu-Eleven doesn’t quite understand nuclear physics, doesn’t make him stupid or ignorant. I think the majority of people don’t understand. And anyway, I think its much better to not quite understand, then to harbour an irrational fear of it, like some people here.

It seems the people against nuclear power on this thread seem to just want to argue with Zulus ideas. You just seem to ignore things from Tenuous, tree-magnet and Rio.

TJ, I know, its wiki, but if you look at the sources for the tables they seem reliable and a broad range.

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

Also, an interesting fact, you get higher radioactive exposure being near a coal plant then a nuclear plant.

Just did a bit of googling, looks like if the UK was completely nuclear powered, the waste would be equal to that of 4kg per human per year.

Realman, you might be surprised, sometimes its nice to, ahem, underplay ones knowledge for the joy of discourse 😉

just want to argue with Zulus ideas.

Indeed, however, if you look really carefully, what you’ll notice is that nobody has actually been able to put forward a single argument against subduction waste management 😐

I don’t know enough about mining/geology/geography to say. But I’d assume it would be unnecessary.

Nuclear waste can be safely stored in deep mines below the water table. Usually dug into non-permeable rock, if it does leak it’s not an issue. Modern storage is not a metal barrel stacked in a corner, but a highly scientific method of rendering the waste safe for it’s lifetime.

Combine that with half lives measured in decades, and its even safer then I realised.

The Nuclear Barons by Peter Pringle and James Spigelman ; is an amusing and in places hilarious read about nuclear power.

tree-magnet – Member
Nuclear waste can be safely stored in deep mines below the water table. Usually dug into non-permeable rock, if it does leak it’s not an issue. Modern storage is not a metal barrel stacked in a corner, but a highly scientific method of rendering the waste safe for it’s lifetime.

Tree – where and when? its not been done yet

‘scuse the wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository

3 currently operational.

Don’t want to get involved in the bickering and namecalling, my opinion differs somewhat from both of the extremes shown on this thread, but just showing evidence. Do with it what you will. There is the case of one of the mines in Germany leaking, but opinion on the impact of this is debated from either side.

In comparison to coal fired stations (which are being built by the hundreds all over the world each year), TJ’s cut and paste about waste seems like a small price to pay for not destroying the planet by pumping the atmosphere full of C02.

Calder Hall, Chapelcross, Bradwell, Dounreay PFR & DFR, Hunterston A, Dungeness A, Hinkley Point A, Sizewell A, Trawsfynydd, Berkeley: are all nuclear power stations in the UK that have reached the end of their useful lives and have shutdown. Some of them shut-down more than ten years ago (some 20 years ago) but which ones are fully decommissioned?
Answer: zero
If it takes longer to decommission a nuclear power station than the length of time that it ran for, then what is the point of nuclear power?

http://www.nda.gov.uk/

nickc – by the time nuclear stations have been commissioned and built (15yrs or so), carbon capture and storage should be commercially viable which would significantly mitigate CO2 emissions from coal and gas plants. Clearly the world can’t wait 15yrs before topping up its energy therefore coal and gas plants are essential, particularly in the developing countries. These plants can (and should) be “capture ready” to ensure that once CCS technology is proven, it can be more readily rolled out.

It takes hugely longer for a plastic bag to degrade then anyone uses one for, yet we still find a lot of use for them.

That just seems a dumb question?