Greenpeace On Nuclear Power - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-04-2006, 09:19 AM   #31
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 07:01 AM
this is ridiculous.
__________________

__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 06-04-2006, 12:09 PM   #32
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 12:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
this is ridiculous.
Indeed. The hubris and short-sightedness of man is amusing and tragic. "Launch it into space" sounds so easy, yet nothing is known about long- or short-term consequences of such a cavalier attitude. Pumping nuclear waste "back into the earth" sounds so easy, yet, again, nothing is known about the effects of such an enterprise. It all sounds so good on paper, but rockets blow up on launch all the time, we have no way of knowing if containment will be achieved in space, earthquakes and such are still not completely understood. I live in a subduction zone, so call me a NIMBY, but Wanderer can have the nuclear waste put in [i]his[/] backyard instead of mine. Then we can see the effects of such a policy on the next few generations.


Or should we all follow Ali Hewson to Cherobyl next time she goes and see for ourselves?
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
Old 06-04-2006, 06:46 PM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:01 AM
Chernobyl says more about the USSR and communism than it does about nuclear power, launching into space was conditional upon a space elevator it is not economic to use rockets, incidently your location says Southern California; which as part of the West Coast of the United States stopped being a convergent plate margin some 30 million years ago.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 11:28 AM   #34
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 12:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
which as part of the West Coast of the United States stopped being a convergent plate margin some 30 million years ago.


Tell that to the people who live in Northridge. We're straddling the boundary of the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate. I cross the San Andreas Fault every time I go on my Thanksgiving vacation. Every April, when it's Earthquake Awareness Month, we get to hear about when, not if, the Big One hits.

It's a good thing you know so much about earthquake zones, now that you think burying nuclear waste is a such a good idea.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 04:14 PM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 09:01 PM
I realy can`t imagen what will happen with the waiste in 250 years from now. look how much the world has chanced in the last 50. I feel more comfortable when i use my bicycle, install my double glassed windows and drive my energy effeciënt car for long distances than dump this waiste in the future of my children.
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 10:31 PM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha




Tell that to the people who live in Northridge. We're straddling the boundary of the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate. I cross the San Andreas Fault every time I go on my Thanksgiving vacation. Every April, when it's Earthquake Awareness Month, we get to hear about when, not if, the Big One hits.

It's a good thing you know so much about earthquake zones, now that you think burying nuclear waste is a such a good idea.
San Andreas is a transform fault and not a subduction zone, it moves laterally and not vertically. There is a distinction between that situation and a subduction zone where the oceanic crust plows into the continent and and goes beneath it.

Burial at a subduction zone, for instance where the pacific plate goes underneath South America could return the waste back to the earth and lock it up and homogenise it in the mantle. In terms of dealing with the problem for good it is a better proposal than just burying it in a craton and it deserves attention.

Nuclear power is the future, it should be done right.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 11:02 PM   #37
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 2,710
Local Time: 04:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rono
I realy can`t imagen what will happen with the waiste in 250 years from now. look how much the world has chanced in the last 50. I feel more comfortable when i use my bicycle, install my double glassed windows and drive my energy effeciënt car for long distances than dump this waiste in the future of my children.


Reduce energy wastage by building houses N-S facing, double brick, reduce windows on the East and West sides, use solar hot water systems, install rainwater tanks (they don't have to take up any room mine is actually my guttering), put terracotta tiles or concrete with floorboards over the top. I could go on and on about the small, easy to achieve alternatives to actually using heating/cooling, which I don't have. Yep, no heaters and no airconditioning and the best thing! Reduced power bills.
__________________
Tania is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 11:05 PM   #38
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 2,710
Local Time: 04:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
San Andreas is a transform fault and not a subduction zone, it moves laterally and not vertically. There is a distinction between that situation and a subduction zone where the oceanic crust plows into the continent and and goes beneath it.

Burial at a subduction zone, for instance where the pacific plate goes underneath South America could return the waste back to the earth and lock it up and homogenise it in the mantle. In terms of dealing with the problem for good it is a better proposal than just burying it in a craton and it deserves attention.

Nuclear power is the future, it should be done right.
No nuclear power is not the future, solar power and wind power is a much better source of future energy. Even the NSW and Victorian politicians think so.

Can you tell me what would happen if when the radioactive waste and the mantle mix? Has this actually been trialled anywhere?
__________________
Tania is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 11:07 PM   #39
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 03:01 PM
The thing is, take somebody like my parents. My Mom washes the laundry with warm water because you wouldn't believe how much energy you save if you don't wash with hot. I've convinced her to use compact fluorescent lightbulbs so there's that. My Dad refuses to water the lawn every day - it gets watered when it rains, in his words "like God intended it to" because, wait for it, we don't live in bloody Ireland and yet ALL my neighbours are watering their lawn as if Lake Ontario is a bottomless pit. They don't use a dryer, but hang their clothes up on a clothes line, thankfully they have lots of Italian neighbours who do this but you guessed it - it's against a municipal bylaw. Because it's better to run a dryer which guzzles energy than to offend your neighbours by having your panties up on a line in your own backyard which, by the way, is fenced.

And then you have somebody who wants to bury nuclear waste in the ground so my Dad is wondering what the fuck is he doing all this stuff for when there are obviously people out there who don't give a crap about what happens in 200 years anyway.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 06-05-2006, 11:13 PM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Tania


No nuclear power is not the future, solar power and wind power is a much better source of future energy. Even the NSW and Victorian politicians think so.

Can you tell me what would happen if when the radioactive waste and the mantle mix? Has this actually been trialled anywhere?
The waste would mix and be spread out by the slow and steady process of convection - nuclear waste is not explosive - the mantle has been mixing all manner of material for billions of years, it has not been trialled anywhere yet and it would take a few million years for it to be brough down to depth - that is not leaving the problem for future generations.

Solar is not the solution, it isn't as efficient or cost effective for solving energy needs (anyway coal is the cheapest and close to the cleanest option for the eastern states - geosequestration of carbon emissions when the technology has been perfected would make it a carbon neutral process).
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-06-2006, 03:44 AM   #41
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 2,710
Local Time: 04:01 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by A_Wanderer
The waste would mix and be spread out by the slow and steady process of convection - nuclear waste is not explosive - the mantle has been mixing all manner of material for billions of years, it has not been trialled anywhere yet and it would take a few million years for it to be brough down to depth - that is not leaving the problem for future generations.

Solar is not the solution, it isn't as efficient or cost effective for solving energy needs (anyway coal is the cheapest and close to the cleanest option for the eastern states - geosequestration of carbon emissions when the technology has been perfected would make it a carbon neutral process).
[/QUOTE

A few million years is not leaving the problem for future generations?

Exactly how much does it cost to commission a nuclear power plant and how much does it cost to get rid of the waste?

Solar isn't efficient, yet. If the amount of money that is currently being bandied about as being needed to subsidise nuclear power was put into research and development for solar power I think you would find solar as a much more viable option. The Victorian government have even come out and said that they want to use the subsidy to create cleaner coal energy.
__________________
Tania is offline  
Old 06-06-2006, 04:06 AM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:01 AM
if there were any concequences then they wouldn't occur until at least a few million years from now - the minimum ammount of time it would take for the material to get through a cycle and reach the surface again - and that would be in some extreme conditions of transport.

But we wouldn't even embark upon such a project without complete and in depth risk analysis and development of extremely safe procedure, it should be investigated and the viability of different modes of disposal should be weighed up.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-06-2006, 01:46 PM   #43
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 12:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
San Andreas is a transform fault and not a subduction zone, it moves laterally and not vertically. There is a distinction between that situation and a subduction zone where the oceanic crust plows into the continent and and goes beneath it.

Burial at a subduction zone, for instance where the pacific plate goes underneath South America
Or where Seattle is. That's a subduction zone. Let's ask them. Mt. St. Helens could eject radioactive waste!
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 06-06-2006, 05:46 PM   #44
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:01 AM
And it would take a very long time for that potential scenario to eventuate (in an area where convergence is shutting down no less) and if we buried the waste deep enough in the crust then it would probably sink all the way down to the core-mantle boundary and only ever return to the surface in trace ammounts no different than those we already get.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-06-2006, 07:20 PM   #45
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 12:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
And it would take a very long time for that potential scenario to eventuate (in an area where convergence is shutting down no less) and if we buried the waste deep enough in the crust then it would probably sink all the way down to the core-mantle boundary and only ever return to the surface in trace ammounts no different than those we already get.
Ok. Let's go along with this geologic fairy tale you're spinning. How ya gonna get the waste down that far?
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com