Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
this is ridiculous.
Angela Harlem said:this is ridiculous.
A_Wanderer said:which as part of the West Coast of the United States stopped being a convergent plate margin some 30 million years ago.
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.martha said:
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.
Rono said: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.
A_Wanderer said: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.
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.Tania said:
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?
A_Wanderer said: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.
A_Wanderer said: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
A_Wanderer said: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.
martha said:
Ok. Let's go along with this geologic fairy tale you're spinning. How ya gonna get the waste down that far?
By buring it in the subducting oceanic slab beneath kilometers of rock and pelagic sediments - something that is done by drilling just like we would in placing the waste inland, we don't take the stuff down to the mantle the slow but sure movement of the oceanic plate does.martha said:
Ok. Let's go along with this geologic fairy tale you're spinning. How ya gonna get the waste down that far?
A_Wanderer said:By buring it in the subducting oceanic slab beneath kilometers of rock and pelagic sediments - something that is done by drilling
With a deep sea drilling vessel, the cost associated with this would be a major consideration on its feesability.martha said:
HOW does one drill that far down?
A_Wanderer said:With a deep sea drilling vessel, the cost associated with this would be a major consideration on its feesability.