Greenpeace On Nuclear Power

[Angela Harlem]

this is ridiculous.

 

[martha]

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 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?

 

[A_Wanderer]

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.

 

[martha]

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.

 

[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.

 

[A_Wanderer]

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.

 

[Tania]

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]

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?

 

[anitram]

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.

 

[A_Wanderer]

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).

 

[Tania]

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]

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.

 

[martha]

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!

 

[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.

 

[martha]

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?

 

[Tania]

Ok. Let's go along with this geologic fairy tale you're spinning. How ya gonna get the waste down that far?

And what is the likelihood of the whole thing being spewed back out again?

 

[A_Wanderer]

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.

Nuclear fission will never be the final solution for energy, we simply don't have enough material - but if we are going to move away from hydrocarbons it will play a part and we will need to find the best way to dispose of waste, that includes investigation and consideration of things such as burial at subduction zones or within clay rich sedimentary sequences.

 

[martha]

By buring it in the subducting oceanic slab beneath kilometers of rock and pelagic sediments - something that is done by drilling

HOW does one drill that far down?

 

[Angela Harlem]

Why, with an extremely large inspector gadget drill, that's how!

 

[martha]

I shoulda known.

 

[A_Wanderer]

HOW does one drill that far down?

With a deep sea drilling vessel, the cost associated with this would be a major consideration on its feesability.

 

[martha]

With a deep sea drilling vessel, the cost associated with this would be a major consideration on its feesability.

Which makes nuclear power just that much more expensive, then?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Yes, the most practical reason against it is that in most cases fossil fuels are cheaper; same reason strikes against solar even more.

 

[zepher25]

Down here in australia weve got a big debate as to weather we should change from our current coal power to Nuclear power, im personally for it, it annoys me how those activist groups go on about meltdowns though, chernobyl was craply designed and human error caused the meltdown, theres been 1 nuclear meltdown out of the thousands of plants in the world, oh please, give us a break greenpeace

those left wingers have no understanding of economics


YAY YAY YAY POST NUMBER 200!!!!!!!!

 

[A_Wanderer]

The economics in Victoria are definitely in favour of coal and gas, we are replete with the stuff and it really isn't cost effective for nuclear power - in cases where a nuclear industry can stand on it's merit then that should be considered. Whatever happens here Australia is the worlds second largest Uranium exporter and we stand to make a lot of money on a new generation of nuclear power.