This Is Why I Am Not An "Enviromentalist"

[reefraff]

Here's another little diddy the enviros don't like to talk about. The French have got it down to such a science now that only about 10% of the uranium cannot be reprocessed and used again. If you bury the waste deep in an area without ground water there is little chance of it creating a problem.

 

[uneverno]

Like Russia?
Because the French rely on nuclear for ~75% of their electricity, that 10%still amounts to 5000+ tons/year. I realize Uranium is dense and stuff, so in terms of volume, that's not that much, but still - it has to go somewhere.
So why are the French outsourcing disposal?
Because their existing facilities have been fraught w/ technical difficulties, including leakage into groundwater (Tritium at the Champagne site - but no worries, that only has a half life of 12.5 years), and there's massive public opposition to building new ones. So, they put it on trains and send it to Russia. Meantime, the Germans have found container contamination on those trains as they pass through on their way to Siberia.
All that aside however, assuming it's done properly, the primary issue here isn't so much the technical aspects of safe disposal (vitrification, deep granite burial, etc.), as it is NIMBY. Public opposition cannot be removed from the safe disposal equation for the simple reason that because of it, safe disposal is not taking place as quickly as the waste is piling up. There's a lotta stuff being kept in temporary facilities some of which, like the Russian's, being of questionable standards.

 

[mantisman51]

A large amount of French and other Euro nuclear waste was being sent to INEL (Idaho Nuclear Energy Labratory) in Idaho for storage. Gov Cecil Andrus sent the Ntl Guard to the stateline to stop the Feds from shipping it in. There was an honest and straight-up Democrat. I miss ol' Cec-I didn't agree with everything, but you knew he meant what he said and he didn't mince words.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3022489
Like Russia?
Because the French rely on nuclear for ~75% of their electricity, that 10%still amounts to 5000+ tons/year. I realize Uranium is dense and stuff, so in terms of volume, that's not that much, but still - it has to go somewhere.
So why are the French outsourcing disposal?
Because their existing facilities have been fraught w/ technical difficulties, including leakage into groundwater (Tritium at the Champagne site - but no worries, that only has a half life of 12.5 years), and there's massive public opposition to building new ones. So, they put it on trains and send it to Russia. Meantime, the Germans have found container contamination on those trains as they pass through on their way to Siberia.
All that aside however, assuming it's done properly, the primary issue here isn't so much the technical aspects of safe disposal (vitrification, deep granite burial, etc.), as it is NIMBY. Public opposition cannot be removed from the safe disposal equation for the simple reason that because of it, safe disposal is not taking place as quickly as the waste is piling up. There's a lotta stuff being kept in temporary facilities some of which, like the Russian's, being of questionable standards.
I doubt France has anyplace without the groundwater given the geographical location.
I found this to discribe the amount of waste generated by a plant
"There is very little waste produced by a nuclear power plant. To put the amount of waste into perspective, if all of the spent fuel rods (the waste of a nuclear plant) from all of the plants in the United States were piled together, they would only cover an area the size of a football field three feet deep.4 This may seem like a lot, but there are over 100 plants in America, and the waste is from every plant since the inception of nuclear power."
Found something else that listed it as 3 cubic meters per billion Kilowatt Hours. Can't be too big seeing as how most is stored at power plants.
Really doesn't matter because nuclear is going to happen, it has to. You couldn't build enough wind and solar to come close to meeting any developed countries needs.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3022499
A large amount of French and other Euro nuclear waste was being sent to INEL (Idaho Nuclear Energy Labratory) in Idaho for storage. Gov Cecil Andrus sent the Ntl Guard to the stateline to stop the Feds from shipping it in. There was an honest and straight-up Democrat. I miss ol' Cec-I didn't agree with everything, but you knew he meant what he said and he didn't mince words.
I remember Gov Cecil, one of the rare "good" Democrats

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3022075
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-262/of97-262.html
You were saying, geridoc? Oh, because the aerosol (cfc chemically) is not man-made it doesn't count? If you would like, I have about 10 other links to government and UN reports, hardly supporters of right-wing conspirists.
And they will all say the same thing - that CFC does not come from volcanoes, it is man made, as I said.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3022738
Found something else that listed it as 3 cubic meters per billion Kilowatt Hours. Can't be too big seeing as how most is stored at power plants.
Yeah, not big at all, hence my comment re: volume. I ran a calculation some years ago based on the atomic weight of U2xx, and as I recall, 6-7 tons is substantially smaller than a compacted compact car.
Really doesn't matter because nuclear is going to happen, it has to. You couldn't build enough wind and solar to come close to meeting any developed countries needs.
Not yet, but yeah, true enough. Solar has made amazing leaps in the last decade, but nowhere near enough yet.
The most irksome thing there is that the utility companies are actively opposed to energy self sufficiency which, especially in areas like where I live, is absolutely do-able. For 10-15k, I could generate a good deal more power than I use. Despite the tax breaks and surplus buybacks however, the game is still rigged in favor of National corporations and even though our National politicians toe the get off of foreign oil line, the local reality prevents it.
If we can put a man on the moon in less than a decade w/ 50's technology, we could be energy self sufficient in the same time frame, I should think. If that includes Nuclear, so be it. I'm fine with that as a transition. Not so in favor of it long term, but hey - fusion's coming.
The fact that progress is taking place so slowly makes me doubt the corporate/political elites sincerity though... When's the last time we had an administration where either the president or the veep wasn't a wholly owned subsidiary of big oil? --- Carter?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3022770
Yeah, not big at all, hence my comment re: volume. I ran a calculation some years ago based on the atomic weight of U2xx, and as I recall, 6-7 tons is substantially smaller than a compacted compact car.
Not yet, but yeah, true enough. Solar has made amazing leaps in the last decade, but nowhere near enough yet.
The most irksome thing there is that the utility companies are actively opposed to energy self sufficiency which, especially in areas like where I live, is absolutely do-able. For 10-15k, I could generate a good deal more power than I use. Despite the tax breaks and surplus buybacks however, the game is still rigged in favor of National corporations and even though our National politicians toe the get off of foreign oil line, the local reality prevents it.
If we can put a man on the moon in less than a decade w/ 50's technology, we could be energy self sufficient in the same time frame, I should think. If that includes Nuclear, so be it. I'm fine with that as a transition. Not so in favor of it long term, but hey - fusion's coming.
The fact that progress is taking place so slowly makes me doubt the corporate/political elites sincerity though... When's the last time we had an administration where either the president or the veep wasn't a wholly owned subsidiary of big oil?
If you don't mind your home looking like an eye sore it's been possible to generate surplus power for years. I still lived in Californicate when they passed the law that required you to connect to the grid even if you were generating your own power and of course YOU HAD TO BUY THE CONNECTION EQUIPMENT FROM THE POWER COMPANY. They basically priced you out of the market.
They are starting to build solar panels that look like shingles but they are still horribly inefficient. I am waiting for the time to build or by the house we will retire in, hoping by then they will have complete roof systems. You figure if the shingle was a solar panel not only would it generate power, you would have a roof that would last decades.

 

[uneverno]

+1 on both counts.
We're getting close. The big hurdle to overcome at this point, as I understand it, is the time it takes to grow the crystaline matrix.

 

[slf125]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3021748
How can you back this up? These same people can't even predict a 5 day forecast accurately.....and you are predicting what will happen in 100 years? I Challenge you tell argue the difference between the two.
Sorry if I didn't make it clear, it was an example. Also, I think that on principal there is a difference in 5 day and 100 years. 5 day your reading maps of warm fronts and cold fronts and specific humidity and wind direction. None of those will really effect climate in 100 years. Were measuring the amount of sun rays that are reflected aand the amount that are contained.
if more are contained, then the temp rises.
And as I have said before, this may be earth just going back to it's warmer state and we have nothing to do with it. But it's a game of russian roulette i don't care to play.

 

[prime311]

I'm not sure you can realistically argue against global warming and large scale climate changes. These things are basically proven fact at this point. The items up for question are the influence of man on these things and the long term effect they will have.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by prime311
http:///forum/post/3023217
I'm not sure you can realistically argue against global warming and large scale climate changes. These things are basically proven fact at this point. The items up for question are the influence of man on these things and the long term effect they will have.
The globe has been "warming " since the last ice age. In the 70's they were screaming about global cooling.
If they would spend more time studying the issue rather than pushing a political agenda perhaps they could develop computer models that will accurately track historic weather patterns and explain why if CO2 causing warming why there are patterns of cooling at times when CO2 is rising and warming when CO2 was decreasing.

 

[slf125]

where'd you get that information? That doesn't seem to make sense.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by SLF125
http:///forum/post/3023375
where'd you get that information? That doesn't seem to make sense.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...lobal-cooling/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/3...-and-ice-ages/

 

[slf125]

thanks, i'll look over those.

 

[slf125]

those do propose good support for neutral/ global cooling. Honestly, I find it hard to present a counter arguement as arguements against global warming are numerous in those it I would end up getting confused. So instead I have decided to do some research on the topic, both for and against global warming/climate change.

 

[slf125]

I would like to say, however, that one theory (well, a rather well supported theory) is that as temperature naturally rised, it lowered Carbon dioxide's solubility level and therefore created a rise in concentration in the atmosphere. This accelerated the global warming during those time periods, now as the globe started to cool again ( something about phases of the sun/ will look up more information on this) it increased solubility of c02 in the oceansand therefore it decreased in concentration in the atmosphere ( again, looking inot more information).
Also, people in this thread were saying how there was a "crisis" of global cooling in the 70's. That was mostly media based and had little real scientific fact to back it. In fact there were actually many more scientific papers ( that is to say, ones actually back by science or containing real evidence) written in support of global warming than cooling.

 

[reefraff]

The point is their is not enough evidence to warrant crashing the economy to curb CO2 emissions. I think it warrants more study and encouraging decreasing the emissions is a smart move because at some point co2 levels could rise to a point where it could become a major problem but I am more concerned with it affecting the PH levels in the oceans and lakes.

 

[reefraff]

And another point. Lets assume for a moment that Algore's hysteria about the oceans rising 20 feet in 100 years was sorta true (even the IPCC disagrees with that)
If I am right and warming is a natural occurrence that man may have a minuet influence on then we must change our development patterns now, Even a 5 foot increase in ocean levels would lead to some serious issues in coastal areas around the world. Better start planning now.

 

[slf125]

so your point is that it's happening but we have nothing to do with it( A.K.A we have little effect) but still need to prepare.
I don't think we need to crash the economy but I also think we need to do more to curb our foot print in general.