Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Joined: Feb 23, 2005 Posts: 512 Location: Winnipeg
Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:06 pm Post subject: Why is nuclear waste disposal so hard?
I say we can drop it into a deep dark mine shaft in the Canadian Shield. Hardly any people thereabouts, those rocks of the shield have been around for billions of years,very geologically stable.
I'm sure hundreds of feet in the ground, hardly any radiation would leak out.
Aside from the political problems of my fellow Canadians squealing about taking in nuclear waste from others into their territory, is this such a problematic solution?
Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:17 pm Post subject: Re: Why is nuclear waste disposal so hard?
zoidberg wrote:
I say we can drop it into a deep dark mine shaft in the Canadian Shield. Hardly any people thereabouts, those rocks of the shield have been around for billions of years,very geologically stable.
I'm sure hundreds of feet in the ground, hardly any radiation would leak out.
Aside from the political problems of my fellow Canadians squealing about taking in nuclear waste from others into their territory, is this such a problematic solution?
Nuclear waste isn't a problem because of the actual waste, its a problem because tree-huggers don't think it ever should have been created in the first place, for any reason. Kinda of a leftover pacifist urge stretching all the way back to WWII where the big, bad mean US dropped nukes on Japan when instead they should have fought their way inland killing every man, woman and child they could find while the men, women and children tried to do the same to them.
Instead of the hundreds of thousands dead from nukes, we'd have millions dead from the usual reasons, guns, bombs, fire and bayonet, which apparently is much more acceptable to the "anti" faction. My bet is they'd still be whining 70 years later about the carnage, no matter WHAT was done, hypocrits and pacifists usually being in close proximity if not direct physical contact.
Don't get me wrong, nuclear waste is bad, but its hardly like greenhouse gases are BETTER, particularly considering the QUANTITIES of the waste matter involved. I'll take nuke waste any day of the week from an engineering point of view related to disposal rather than trying to sequester CO2 or whatever other silly concepts people are proposing nowadays. _________________ So....heading into our 3rd year post peak and I'm still getting caught in traffic jams!! DieOff already!
Joined: May 15, 2005 Posts: 4142 Location: THE MATRIX
Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:38 pm Post subject: Re: Why is nuclear waste disposal so hard?
Zoidberg:
solution to what?
What problem?
RGR - hold the Fark up buddy.
We can prove that american corporations were supplying the nazi effort and also that high command knew that the attack on pearl harbor was going to occur and that it was neccessary to draw america into the war.
2+2=5?
FDR Pearl Harbor Conspiracy
Boy that seems familiar yet I have learned to use occams razor and deny the existence of coincidences.....
Yeah we had to kill those people..... _________________ It is easier to enslave a people that wish to remain free then it is to free a people who wish to remain enslaved.
Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:54 pm Post subject: Re: Why is nuclear waste disposal so hard?
My personal favorite is dropping the hardened canisters of waste into the muck a few miles deep off the coast of Chile. Where in due time they will be subducted below the continental crust.
Now if only I were sure nobody would cut corners and say not take the stuff all the way there... _________________ The difference between Genius and Stupidity is that Genius has its limits.
Joined: Feb 23, 2005 Posts: 512 Location: Winnipeg
Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 9:46 pm Post subject: Re: Why is nuclear waste disposal so hard?
It seems to me that one argument people use against nuclear power is that decommissioning the plants is more expensive and energy intensive than a pro-nuke person will admit. Especially the long term storage of radioactive wastes. I was curious if there was any reason for that concern, and maybe the helpful folks at PO could tell me why that may be. Or why dumping in the shield may be reckless in some way.
I do like the sound of the Chilean disposal idea - but wouldn't being on a fault line make an earthquake more likely to disperse the waste around? Whereas in the shield, it would really just sit there for millions/ maybe billions of years.
Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:13 pm Post subject: Re: Why is nuclear waste disposal so hard?
Quote:
t seems to me that one argument people use against nuclear power is that decommissioning the plants is more expensive and energy intensive than a pro-nuke person will admit.
Well, you might try and find out how many nuclear power plants have been competely removed and the site returned to its former condition. Could be some have, but I don't remember hearing or reading about any.
As for the problem with fault movement disturbing the waste, I figure it is probably less of a threat than some unwanted person getting to mineshaft stored waste and using it for nefarious purposes. Anyway with subduction trench disposal it would be on the order of five miles below sea level, and buried in muck.
As I said before, the problem I see is just getting the waste to the burial site no matter where it is. _________________ The difference between Genius and Stupidity is that Genius has its limits.
Joined: Oct 16, 2004 Posts: 1281 Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:59 pm Post subject: Re: Why is nuclear waste disposal so hard?
You could also drop it into the Marianas Trench, or any of the other deep trenches at the subduction zones. The real problem would be ensuring they actually go into the trench and not get swept past the edge by water currents. _________________ Kind regards, Katkinkate
"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops,
but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
Masanobu Fukuoka
Joined: Apr 28, 2005 Posts: 3908 Location: West shore Lake Eire, MI, USA
Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 12:04 am Post subject: Re: Why is nuclear waste disposal so hard?
The dirty little secret is what the US government calls high level nuclear waste is 99% valuable materials and 1% gaseous products like Xenon and Krypton gasses.
95-96% is Uranium, that stuff the anti's keep saying we are critcally low on supplies of.
1%+/- is Plutonium and transuranics that can be used as fuel or just irradiated in a power reactor until transmuted.
1%+/- are gasses at room temperature like Krypton and Xenon, and some of the rest is Iodine and Cerium that both have very low boiling points and can be seperated for trivial effort.
The remaining 2% contains tons of valuable heavy metals like Palladium and Silver.
If you partition and recycle it all you are left with....a few tons of irradiated Zirconium cladding. This material could actually still be recycled if it were not cheaper to replace it than it is to add more remote manipulation to the fuel manufacturing and handling process. _________________ Always appeal to a man's enlightened self interest, you can trust him to look out for himself honestly, It's when you appeal to his Honor or the Common Good that he stops paying attention.
Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 10:01 am Post subject: Re: Why is nuclear waste disposal so hard?
zoidberg wrote:
I say we can drop it into a deep dark mine shaft in the Canadian Shield. Hardly any people thereabouts, those rocks of the shield have been around for billions of years,very geologically stable.
I'm sure hundreds of feet in the ground, hardly any radiation would leak out.
Aside from the political problems of my fellow Canadians squealing about taking in nuclear waste from others into their territory, is this such a problematic solution?
It has certainly been looked into: NWMO Final Study (Warning: big pdf)
Quote:
Siting Phase
The siting phase covers the time period in which a suitable location for a central deep geological repository in the Canadian Shield is being sought. It begins after a formal decision is made to start the process of finding a suitable site and would end when regulatory approval is received to construct the facility at the preferred site (estimated to be about 15 to 20 years).
Quote:
Design and Construction Phase
The construction phase (about 10 to 15 years) begins with the receipt of regulatory approval to begin construction and ends when commissioning of the facilities is completed prior to receiving the first formal shipment of used fuel for placement. It involves constructing the infrastructure and surface facilities needed to receive used fuel, the underground access ways and service areas, and a portion of the underground rooms for used fuel.
Translation: Slightly complicated
Oh yeah, and there's the minor issue of this:
Quote:
CHAPTER 14 /
Addressing Social, Economic and Cultural Effects
Section 12(6)(c) of the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act (NFWA) requires the NWMO to specify the means that will be used “to avoid or minimize significant socio-economic effects on a community’s way of life or on its social, cultural or economic aspirations.”
Quote:
14.1 / The Context
NWMO’s overall strategy for managing socio-economic effects consists of three key components:
1. Seeking a willing community to host any long-term waste management facility;
2. Building with that community a strategy for long-term community sustainability;
and
3. Working collaboratively and openly with all those potentially affected by implementation in a fair and equitable manner.
_________________ Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on. -- Winston Churchill
"No matter from which angle you look at reprocessing it is illogical. It's expensive, produces useless materials, releases vast quantities of waste into the environment, increases the total volume of waste, and increases nuclear proliferation risks. "
"One of the most controversial issues with reprocessing facilities is their daily discharge of huge quantities of radioactive liquid waste into the sea and radioactive discharges into the air. The Sellafield and La Hague facilities are the biggest source of radioactive pollution in the Europe. The radioactive contamination in the sea can be traced as far as the Arctic and eastern Canada." _________________ Jim Gagnepain
Make a BOLD statement while using Alternative Transportation
http://www.oilfreeandhappy.com
"No matter from which angle you look at reprocessing it is illogical. It's expensive, produces useless materials, releases vast quantities of waste into the environment, increases the total volume of waste, and increases nuclear proliferation risks. "
"One of the most controversial issues with reprocessing facilities is their daily discharge of huge quantities of radioactive liquid waste into the sea and radioactive discharges into the air. The Sellafield and La Hague facilities are the biggest source of radioactive pollution in the Europe. The radioactive contamination in the sea can be traced as far as the Arctic and eastern Canada."
That has been the view of Greenpeace and Jimmy Carter from day 1. Pointless propaganda battles aside reprocessing is and will continue to happen for the forseeable future, and the dumping in the sea of waste is something only stupid people do. That same waste liquid can be easily evaporated into solids and refined. _________________ Always appeal to a man's enlightened self interest, you can trust him to look out for himself honestly, It's when you appeal to his Honor or the Common Good that he stops paying attention.
Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 9:23 am Post subject: Re: Why is nuclear waste disposal so hard?
radiation is essentially forever. _________________ ___________________________
WHEN THE BLIND LEAD THE BLIND...GET OUT OF THE WAY!
Using evil to further good makes one evil
Doubt everything but the TRUTH
This posted information is not permissible to be used
by anyone who has ever met a lawyer
"No matter from which angle you look at reprocessing it is illogical. It's expensive, produces useless materials, releases vast quantities of waste into the environment, increases the total volume of waste, and increases nuclear proliferation risks. "
"One of the most controversial issues with reprocessing facilities is their daily discharge of huge quantities of radioactive liquid waste into the sea and radioactive discharges into the air. The Sellafield and La Hague facilities are the biggest source of radioactive pollution in the Europe. The radioactive contamination in the sea can be traced as far as the Arctic and eastern Canada."
That has been the view of Greenpeace and Jimmy Carter from day 1. Pointless propaganda battles aside reprocessing is and will continue to happen for the forseeable future, and the dumping in the sea of waste is something only stupid people do. That same waste liquid can be easily evaporated into solids and refined.
I'd say Jimmy Carter was fairly qualified. He spent his Naval career on nuclear submarine. I'm sure if it were "easy", it would be done correctly. To me, "propaganda" is the false security statements that this industry wants us to buy. _________________ Jim Gagnepain
Make a BOLD statement while using Alternative Transportation
http://www.oilfreeandhappy.com
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
