The Long Shadow of Chernobyl

I think you missed my link on page 4, Aracer. Wind turbines don’t need rare earths.

80/240/540 years of proven uranium reserves is pretty good compared with any of the non-renewable alternatives.

Prematurely closing nuclear reactors which still have life in them wil just result in life as we know it ending sooner:

1)

So – what rock – whats the location of the depository?

There are a few prospective sites here in Oz. The place is only, what, 3.8 bn years old.

2)

Waht process to make it chemincally inert?

Turn it into glass, like already happens. Look up ‘vitrification’.

3)

How will you ensure it does not get into the water table in this timespan?

See (1) and (2)

4)

How can you ensure it willnot be affected by earthquakes over that timespan?

See (1) and (2)

5)

How will you monitor it

I suspect it will involve computers and stuff. Also see (1) and (2)

6)

will you make it retreivable in the event of leakage?

See (1) and (2)

Easy really…

So lets see some real meaningful answers – not just platitudes baldly stated that we have to accept on faith.

It’s just like having cressers back 😀

http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nukesclimatechangereport.pdf

Again, Macavity, why should I click on that link? Will it provide me new information? Will it back the opinions of others on this thread, or support my own?

In short, yur debatingz is saracin

EDIT: Having just skimmed your posting history, I’ve come to the conclusion you must be some sort of bot.

So, for the most part, we have reasoned argument backed up with scientific facts (and good discussions amongst these opinions, especially with Edukator) vs a faith healer and a google-bot. No wonder this thread hasn’t turned out very well

I’ll happily accept 80 years supply as the point it makes is still valid. with such a shortage of fuel, nuclear cannot be a part of reducing AGW as we don’t have the fuel to power the number of reactors needed.

Wow that is really really really generous of you no really it is…now all we need is someone else with like say a science background to agree with you and hey we can then debate that figure v what other scientists who work in the industry says
You seem to think that reducing c02 for 80 years is not worth anything and is nothing – it is a short term solution even if we believe your calculations

this really does amuse me – the touching faith you guys have in the nuclear industry despite 50 years of lies – still continuing today

Faith? I am not fan of it but it unfortunately the best short term alternative- does throwing gentle ad hominem and lazy slurs to those who have a different view to you part of your simple logic we cannot defeat?

Your refusal to give any meaningful answers to the three questions is laughable as well.

You refusal to accept any answer you disagree with as meaningful is somewhere between , desperate, tragic and laughable
Here is your answer to magnets btw to show you a non meaningful [ its just a refusal to answer ]
As for the question about rare earth magnets and so on – a complete irrelevance to the point which is about what is the case for nuclear.
Is this the sort of meaningful answer you would prefer?
Really you are like a self awareness vacum accusing everyone of doing exactly what you do, your lack of self awareness is at Olympic levels here –

If I said – reneawables and energy efficiency will be enough you would rightly press me for details
However to say as you guys do – waste can be got rid off by putting it in a hole in the ground, new tech will come on line meaning we have more fuel and new tech will come on line meaning reactors are less polluting is just accepted by you, Your faith is touching and laughable – and misplaced.

Your are right TJ life shows us that mankind does not progress, move forward and the next generation will not be able to do anything new that we cannot currently do. Its an excellent point well made. How is the leech treatment going of your patients and I assume you still drill their heads for mental health purposes?
You cannot even phrase the question respectfully no and you just assert it is both faith [probably because you cannot see the multiple answers given]and misplaced and then regale us with how logical your argument is ..its pish.
PS you know there are not enough magnets for your wind power are you hoping for some new technology we currently don’t have to come along toi make it successful. If”we” are doing this then so are you [ i knwo you will deny it but no one belives this]
It’s a shame the issue is complicated and it requires a subtle and nuanced debate to work out the best solutions [ with non being ideal tbh] in order to make something sustainable. That’s is a debate that can never be had when you are in the “debate” as you just polarise then brow beat…it’s the last time I am getting sucked in “debating” with youa as I now know what futile means

The only interest in these threads when you get involved is in pointing out your hypocrisy

.

THIS but it is pointless as despite you being told this on numerous threads by numerous people I really do believe you think it is all of us who have a problem and not you or your simple logic- that is tragic and I don’t wish to partake in “debate” with you.
Itis like debating with a person of faoth with limited intelect.

Junkyard –

You seem to think that reducing c02 for 80 years is not worth anything and is nothing – it is a short term solution even if we believe your calculations

Its not a meaningful amount – nuclear power is a small % of energy usage – so 80 years at current usage will make no significant difference to AGW

For nuclear to make any significant difference it needs to be expanded massively – and we do not have the fuel for that.

Its a serious point. People claim nuclear is needed to prevent global warming but by the nuclear industries own figures we do not have the fuel available for that.

No one on this thread has addressed this point.

Zokes – so no answers again then What a suprise.

aracer
There are comprehensive answers to your questions

Really – can you copy and paste them then please as I am unable to see them.

Zokes – so no answers again then What a suprise.

Umm did you not see the post where he said “turn it into glass and put it somewhere geologically stable”?

Or are you just being as closed minded?

gonefishin – its a limited answer to a limited part of it. Its the only bit he even attempts to answer.

“Put it somewhere geologically stable” Really meaningful

Where is this mythological place? what type of rock? Where is it located?

You claimed no-one’s mind could be changed earlier. Why don’t you accept your own forecast and STFU giving everyone a rest from your tiresome argumentative BS.

I reckon you sat up half the night thinking of your first post this morning. You’re clearly obsessed with something and it would appear to be with arguing for the sake of it.

Boring…

teasel This question shows the massive hole in the pro nuclear arguement and non of the pro nukes will answer it.

Its a serious point. People claim nuclear is needed to prevent global warming but by the nuclear industries own figures we do not have the fuel available for that.

You claimed no-one’s mind could be changed earlier. Why don’t you accept your own forecast and STFU

its a limited answer to a limited part of it. Its the only bit he even attempts to answer.

He took all of your questions and answered them one by one. That’s not limited.

“Put it somewhere geologically stable” Really meaningful

That was me summarising what he said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_management

Since you are so fond of wiki, that’s how several coutries have decided to do it.

Now I appreciate that you may not like the proposed solutions but that doesn’t mean that they won’t be effective.

Its the only bit he even attempts to answer.

i refer you to the answer you eventually gave me after being asked about 5 times on wind generators where you simply stated you would not answer and you considered that an answer 🙄
No answer will satisfy you when it is given to you and any answer given by you is undefeatable simple logic… then you dollop in some slurs about faith and luaghing at others.
It does not matter what anyone says does it. How many people have told you it has been answered now? How many have agreed with you.

I cannot decide if this is tragic or funny.
i can it is tragic really tragic…every thread becsome this for you TJ 😥

Gonefishing – read your wiki link.

Governments around the world are considering a range of waste management and disposal options, usually involving deep-geologic placement, although there has been limited progress toward implementing long-term waste management solutions.[

Hannes Alfvén, Nobel laureate in physics, described the as yet unsolved dilemma of high-level radioactive waste management: “The problem is how to keep radioactive waste in storage until it decays after hundreds of thousands of years. The geologic deposit must be absolutely reliable as the quantities of poison are tremendous. It is very difficult to satisfy these requirements for the simple reason that we have had no practical experience with such a long term project. Moreover permanently guarded storage requires a society with unprecedented stability.”[8]

Junkyard – if the questions I posed have been answered will you please copy and paste them?

Its a serious point. People claim nuclear is needed to prevent global warming but by the nuclear industries own figures we do not have the fuel available for that.

You mean the nuclear industry’s own figures which say they have 230 years of fuel at current usage levels, but that could be more than doubled by more efficient use of fuel (using current technology)? So if we allow for 50 years of use (before things like Thorium or fusion come on-line), that allows for 10 times as much nuclear power as we have now – is that not a massive expansion?

Or do you mean TJ’s grossly distorted figures?

How much real baseload energy do renewables supply compared to nuclear?

<though I’m really not sure why I bother – doubtless that’s not a proper answer to the STW “expert” on this>

No – I mean the industries own figures of 80 years worth of known reserves at current usage.

Really – can you copy and paste them then please as I am unable to see them.

Nope – CBA expending the effort in a futile attempt to win an internet argument with you about this – not when you’ll doubtless dismiss them in the same way you do with any other reasoned argument which doesn’t agree with your religious view.

No – I mean the industries my own figures of 80 years worth of known reserves at current usage.

FTFY

Aracer – direct lift from the NEA numbers. 80 years worth of KNOWN reserves

TJ = Worzel Gummidge doing a five-knuckle shuffle.

Only if you completely misinterpret the way the word “known” is used when presenting such figures. The “nuclear industries own figures” include rather more than that

CBA – we’ve done all this before, and you refuse to accept the way this is calculated by every scientist involved.

if the questions I posed have been answered will you please copy and paste them?

Just when I thought you could not get worse

Ok i am going to runa sweep stake on this i am going for you having been answered 23 times and claimin got have not been answered 25 anyone else
PS 1 more page before closed as well

direct lift from the NEA numbers. 80 years worth of KNOWN reserves as that fits my view . I am going to ignore the rest of the quote about how much they can reasonably expect to find once they explore other potential sites as frankly that part of their view does not fit with my view so I shall just ignore it and pretend it is not part of their view

Dont challenge me I shall mock your faith whilst bigging up my simple logic if you do NOW ANSWER MY QUESTION BY AGREEIN WITH ME
FTFY

Jesus wept pathetic – you dont like the amswers that is your problem

I note wyou dont comment on your own refusal to even answer the question and ewhen you eventually did answer all you said was that you were refusing to answer. Super work of comedic genious or shocking lack of self awareness?

You are going to claim the edinburgh defence soon aren’t you as franky this is getting more and more tragic by the post.

I am leaving the thread before the mods express their displeasure in me again.

I could answer your question by saying ” new technology will come on line meaning this problem will disappear”

you seem to find that an acceptable answer for the questions I ask about nukes 🙂

Ok i am going to runa sweep stake on this i am going for you having been answered 23 times

19

So, renewables. At the moment it makes up a teeny weeny proportion of power generation. How will these be expanded to meet the shortfall with no coal or nuclear (and longer term gas too).

How many windfarm, Solar installations, geo-thermal stations, hydro electric, wave thingies and anything else will we need?

Where is this all going to go and what has to be sacrificed to enable this? Do we give up prime farm land for this and then do we start to go hungry?

Where is this all going to go and what has to be sacrificed to enable this? Do we give up prime farm land for this and then do we start to go hungry?

Ah, a daily mail reader!

piedi di formaggio

apparently its acceptable to answer:-

“new tech will come on line and make it all work in a satisfactory way”

Where did this word “known” come from. As a geologist I’d rather quote “proven”, “probable” and “possible”. After digging about a bit on the Net, for uranium those correspond to 80+ years, 2-600 years and very approximately 3000 years. Look at the evolution of “proven” reserves for oil and gas over the last 50 years and you’ll see that we are now running on what was “possible” back then.

So, renewables. At the moment it makes up a teeny weeny proportion of power generation. How will these be expanded to meet the shortfall with no coal or nuclear (and longer term gas too).

They won’t

How many windfarm, Solar installations, geo-thermal stations, hydro electric, wave thingies and anything else will we need?

There is not enough land space in the UK to satisfy our energy requirement through renewables

Where is this all going to go and what has to be sacrificed to enable this? Do we give up prime farm land for this and then do we start to go hungry?

No.
I don’t read the mail.

So, without (at current technological levels) nuclear, when the sun goes down, it’s going to go dark & quiet.

Ironically, it’s also going to be darker for longer in Scotland 😆

Interesting news on the BBC site

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-17445479

A US power company is planning to build a coal-fired power station at Grangemouth, BBC Scotland has learned.

The proposed plant would be built at the Port of Grangemouth, on the Firth of Forth, west of Edinburgh.

C02 emissions would be captured and piped to St Fergus in Aberdeenshire, before being stored deep under the North Sea.

Sound familiar?

So after “not enough rare earths” and “not enough uranium”, Wrecker now adds “not enough land space for renewables”.

Yes it does sound familar, Pied, and will probably go the way of the previously announced, much vaunted, and cancelled capture and storage projects.

Zokes – so no answers again then What a suprise.

PMSL! Well, you’ve cheered me up this morning with such an insightful and decisive argument winning post 😆

Australia has been about for billions of years, it’s outlived the dinosaurs and god knows what else. I’m pretty sure the place will outlive humanity without changing much. Seeing as I spend far too much time travelling around it for work, I can assure you it’s pretty bloody big too. So, if we’re looking for somewhere that’s large enough (it was mainly formed in the early archaean age – the clue’s in the name) and also geologically stable, I’d suggest I’m sat on it right now. Ironically, it’s also where most of the stuff comes from in the first place.

As for vitrification: well, I’ve never head of glass dissolving. I accept if you leave it somewhere windy and dusty it might erode, but deep under ground there’s not much wind.

TandemJeremy – Member
piedi di formaggio

apparently its acceptable to answer:-

“new tech will come on line and make it all work in a satisfactory way”

I think you’ll find we borrowed this fro you re: wave / tidal on a large and non-environmentally-damaging way.

C02 emissions would be captured and piped to St Fergus in Aberdeenshire, before being stored deep under the North Sea.

Well, as opposed to letting this harmful pollution out into the atmosphere, I suppose “just sticking it in a hole in the ground” might be an improvement, if it can be kept there for eternity, seeing as CO2 doesn’t decay at all…

Australia has been about for billions of years

…..it was mainly formed in the early archaean age – the clue’s in the name

😕

Truly EPIC BATTLING guys, mostly TJ tho, the rest of you need to reed that parable about internet arguing and pig wrestling.

Im still after the proof that 10’s of thousands died as a result of the op subject. Seriiously TJ, i’d like to see it but I can’t find it. Pointers please?