NationStates

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 3:18 pm**

Yes Im Biop wrote:
Tule wrote:
What? Nimbyism, sentimentality and politics?

It's a perfectly safe place to put the waste.

I remember reading about one such waste site. It kinda exploded and wiped a 150 mile area off the map.

That was the Mayak reprocessing plant, not a storage site.
Also, the radioactive substance released there was a liquid, spent nuclear fuel is a bundle of metal rods.

Yuccan is not a good place to bury Waste anyway. Nowhere is. Except probably the earth's core.
Neither are cheap. But both will get rid of ti forever

Commercial rockets in general have a very high failure rate. The fact that no Saturn V blew up is mostly just luck.
Spent nuclear fuel is also ridiculously dense. One ton of uranium takes up as much space as a typical computer case.
You would have to launch hundreds of Saturn V's to get rid of all the waste, something that's extremely risky and nation-bankruptingly expensive.

Putting the waste hundreds of meters below the surface and above the water table in geologically stable bedrock will keep it isolated until it has decayed to a safe level.

Any natural phenomenon that can erode hundreds of meters of rock or raise the water table by hundreds of meters in less than 100.000 years is a much bigger threat to humanity than nuclear waste. I'm talking about stuff like Ice Ages and extinction level comet impacts.
The former won't happen at Yucca mountain unless the whole planet turns into a snowball.

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 3:30 pm**

We need to get actual fusion power up and running.
But in the meantime, fission plants are good as long as they have very advanced security and safety measures and the waste is disposed in a geologically stable area, like has been said 20 times here.
Nuclear is the best way to go, fission or fusion. On small scales, wind, solar, geothermal, etc. Also hydro, if it doesn't involve a dam that will affect the surrounding area too much.

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 3:46 pm**

Tule wrote:
NERVUN wrote:...

Learn the issues of Yucca Mountain.

What? Nimbyism, sentimentality and politics?

It's a perfectly safe place to put the waste.

You mean a place with porous rocks that leak into the water table in the third most seismically active state in the union that is supposed to be magically protected by technologies we don't have and haven't even come close to inventing because everyone else didn't want it in their backyards?

Yeah, you know nothing.

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 3:49 pm**

The Scientific States wrote:
Slafstopia wrote:I don't like nuclear power simply because when it does fuck up, the results are catastrophic.

There are ways to ensure that nuclear power plants don't screw up.

But there are always ways to ensure that it does and will, whether it be an earthquake, faulty technicians, or bribed regulators.

Either way, it's gambling with something I'd prefer to not gamble with.

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 3:49 pm**

I strongly believe atoms should not be trusted. They make up everything.

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 3:53 pm**

Yes Im Biop wrote:
NERVUN wrote:And I noticed that you don't have an answer for me.

An answer to what question?

viewtopic.php?p=16384513#p16384513

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 4:02 pm**

Tule wrote:
Immoren wrote:
Drop unusable waste into Mariana Trench in heavy metal/lead capsules.
Problem=Solved.

Are you crazy? The lead could get out of the container.

Just vitrify the waste, put it in a stainless steel container and dump it into a deep hole in a geologically stable area far above the water table.

Y'know, like Yucca mountain.

Lol stainless steel.

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 4:08 pm**

NERVUN wrote:Here's the problem I have with nuclear power, when it screws up (And yes I read the bloody thread) the effects last a very, VERY long time. Governments rarely think about that kind of timescale and as TEPCO is so wonderfully proving, private businesses are incapable of it at all. Yes, you're gonna trot out the stats and all, but I can trot out a couple of things too. These are power plants run by companies, who put profits above all else. TEPCO knew damn well about the chance of a large earthquake and tsunami, but it decided that to quakeproof Fukushima Daiichi would be bad for profits, so it didn't do it. It knew there were leaks, but decided that admitting that would also be bad for profits. Other utilities in Japan are currently screaming bloody murder to get their reactors restarted as their profits are taking a hit, even going so far as to challenge the NRA's new safety standards because a number of the reactors are now in violation (Actually a number of reactors are in violation of the old standards as well). And yet I'm supposed to trust the guys who are worried more about next quarter's profits to run something that if it goes boom will poison the land for the next couple thousand years and even if it goes right produces waste that will be deadly for hundreds of thousands of years?

No. It might be safe, but the people running it are human and all too fallible for the usual reasons humans are. TEPCO can bow and apologize as many times as it wants to, but that doesn't change the fact that Fukushima Daiichi, Fukushima-ken, Tohoku, and all of Japan are going to have to deal with this for a very, very long time. If you have a way to fix humans now... I'll listen.

Shame you didn't mention an alternative, so I'll say it for you:

natural gas. Cheap, not as clean as nuclear (sans nuclear waste), but not as polluting as coal.

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 4:14 pm**

NERVUN wrote:
Yes Im Biop wrote:

An answer to what question?

viewtopic.php?p=16384513#p16384513

Simple. Quit letting Private corps Run Nuclear plants.

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 4:15 pm**

Yes Im Biop wrote:
NERVUN wrote:viewtopic.php?p=16384513#p16384513

Simple. Quit letting Private corps Run Nuclear plants.

Let's go back to cold fusion, that is far more likely.

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 4:16 pm**

NERVUN wrote:
Yes Im Biop wrote:Simple. Quit letting Private corps Run Nuclear plants.

Let's go back to cold fusion, that is far more likely.

Did I say it was likely?

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:57 pm**

NERVUN wrote:
Tule wrote:
What? Nimbyism, sentimentality and politics?

It's a perfectly safe place to put the waste.

You mean a place with porous rocks that leak into the water table in the third most seismically active state in the union that is supposed to be magically protected by technologies we don't have and haven't even come close to inventing because everyone else didn't want it in their backyards?

Yeah, you know nothing.

Nuclear waste is not some green glowing goo that likes to leak all over the place and it does not violently explode when shaken. It's just ceramic pellets.

As for your question, I'm talking about the place where the only way anything from these pellets is getting into the water table is if rainwater (The Area is a desert and has been for a long time) does not evaporate instantly or get sucked up by plants (most of it does) and then leaks through 300 meters of rock (porosity =/= permeability), somehow drips onto a drip shield (most of it will stick to the the tunnel walls), eats itself through the titanium drip shields (Titanium is reeeeaaaaaaly good at not rusting), through the containers (made of corrosion resistant C-22 alloy), through the Zircaloy fuel rods (also corrosion resistant), does not evaporate as soon as it hits the fuel pellets (They're kinda hot while they are dangerously radioactive), corrodes it (UO₂ does not corrode easily) and then eat itself again through the same fuel rods and containers.
There is a reason why the USGS thinks the Yucca mountain complex is a fine site for the waste you know.

Can you give me a source on the technological difficulties?

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:58 pm**

Slafstopia wrote:
Sapian wrote:
Not at this second.. that would be weird, you would need to do a lot more before just launching something into space

and... so then what are you talking about?

I'm saying that phase angles are important when launching a craft. Launch windows are fleeting.

Not if you use a torchship.

Yes Im Biop wrote:
Tule wrote:
Are you crazy? The lead could get out of the container.

Just vitrify the waste, put it in a stainless steel container and dump it into a deep hole in a geologically stable area far above the water table.

Y'know, like Yucca mountain.

We do have Titan...Saturn5's that didn't ever explode. We could just drop the shit into the sun

Rocket failures are very common.

Thesan wrote:I'm against uranium/plutonium reactors because we don't know how to eliminate a waste that can be extremely dangerous for ~~millions~~ thousands of years

Corrected.

plus Fukushima is really a good example of what happens when a power plant gets some damage...

That is quite rare.

I'm absolutely pro Thorium nuclear reactors and quite favorable to fusion.... mainly because thorium decades in "only" 500 years and it should be much more safer (I'm not so enthusiast about fusion because it'll need hydrogen to work and probably in the future will start a "water rush" instead of a "oil rush")... plus my country is the second main financier after the USA of these two projects so...

'Water rush'!?!

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:58 pm**

Anyway, I think the best way to store nuclear waste is first to reprocess it. Plutonium is not only one of the most dangerous elements of nuclear waste, it is also fissionable and there is no reason to waste it.

The remaining waste can be vitrified (turned into borosilicate-glass) poured into stainless steel containers and dumped into the deepest parts of the Ocean.
The glass does not shatter like normal window glass and it is ridiculously resistant to corrosion. There is a reason why the stuff is used to make laboratory bottles.

The water down there is still, so erosion isn't a problem and water is also an incredibly good radiation shield.

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:02 pm**

Norstal wrote:
NERVUN wrote:Here's the problem I have with nuclear power, when it screws up (And yes I read the bloody thread) the effects last a very, VERY long time. Governments rarely think about that kind of timescale and as TEPCO is so wonderfully proving, private businesses are incapable of it at all. Yes, you're gonna trot out the stats and all, but I can trot out a couple of things too. These are power plants run by companies, who put profits above all else. TEPCO knew damn well about the chance of a large earthquake and tsunami, but it decided that to quakeproof Fukushima Daiichi would be bad for profits, so it didn't do it. It knew there were leaks, but decided that admitting that would also be bad for profits. Other utilities in Japan are currently screaming bloody murder to get their reactors restarted as their profits are taking a hit, even going so far as to challenge the NRA's new safety standards because a number of the reactors are now in violation (Actually a number of reactors are in violation of the old standards as well). And yet I'm supposed to trust the guys who are worried more about next quarter's profits to run something that if it goes boom will poison the land for the next couple thousand years and even if it goes right produces waste that will be deadly for hundreds of thousands of years?

No. It might be safe, but the people running it are human and all too fallible for the usual reasons humans are. TEPCO can bow and apologize as many times as it wants to, but that doesn't change the fact that Fukushima Daiichi, Fukushima-ken, Tohoku, and all of Japan are going to have to deal with this for a very, very long time. If you have a way to fix humans now... I'll listen.

Shame you didn't mention an alternative, so I'll say it for you:

natural gas. Cheap, not as clean as nuclear (sans nuclear waste), but not as polluting as coal.

Only if you like being able to set your water on fire. Fracking is terrible for the environment.

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:19 pm**

Nuclear Power is great, the only problem is the fallout of if a accident occurs. But with strict regulation and having people know what their doing, it could work out.

On a side note, has anyone else first thought of the church from Fallout 3 when reading the title?

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:51 pm**

Yes Im Biop wrote:
NERVUN wrote:Let's go back to cold fusion, that is far more likely.

Did I say it was likely?

So in other words you admit that the likelihood of all rectors run by governments who will adhere to standards is low... Now tell me again about why nuclear power is so great?

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:53 pm**

Pandeeria wrote:On a side note, has anyone else first thought of the church from Fallout 3 when reading the title?

I read the title in Confessor Cromwell's voice.

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:21 pm**

Tule wrote:
NERVUN wrote:You mean a place with porous rocks that leak into the water table in the third most seismically active state in the union that is supposed to be magically protected by technologies we don't have and haven't even come close to inventing because everyone else didn't want it in their backyards?

Yeah, you know nothing.

Nuclear waste is not some green glowing goo that likes to leak all over the place and it does not violently explode when shaken. It's just ceramic pellets.

That emit radiation that can kill you and poison the environment for thousands of years. Please, I lived in Nevada during the first attempt to convince us that there is NO problem and my response to the penny commercial is the same, you want it in your backyard? I now live in Japan where the government is finally moving against TEPCO to start clean up, and they admit it's going to be a few hundred years before the 20km exclusion zone comes down. Don't try to tell me poison is safe, it ain't.

As for your question, I'm talking about the place where the only way anything from these pellets is getting into the water table is if rainwater (The Area is a desert and has been for a long time) does not evaporate instantly or get sucked up by plants (most of it does) and then leaks through 300 meters of rock (porosity =/= permeability), somehow drips onto a drip shield (most of it will stick to the the tunnel walls), eats itself through the titanium drip shields (Titanium is reeeeaaaaaaly good at not rusting), through the containers (made of corrosion resistant C-22 alloy), through the Zircaloy fuel rods (also corrosion resistant), does not evaporate as soon as it hits the fuel pellets (They're kinda hot while they are dangerously radioactive), corrodes it (UO₂ does not corrode easily) and then eat itself again through the same fuel rods and containers.

Ah yes, you mean the water that takes 50 years to get from the surface down to the tunnels... 700ft. Yucca sits 600 to over 1000 feet above the water table. And those fractures that allow water transport down from the surface to the tunnel do extend all the way down to said water table. Not to mention that Yucca has been wetter in the past and may well be again.

There is a reason why the USGS thinks the Yucca mountain complex is a fine site for the waste you know.

You mean the same USGS who admitted to falsifying reports regarding the hydrology of the Yucca Mountain project? Thank you, but, yeah, I kinda have doubts on trusting them right now given that they admitted to making things up so that the project can go ahead.

Can you give me a source on the technological difficulties?

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/de ... rage-plan/
http://www.bellona.org/articles/article ... fore_obama
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news200 ... dorski.pdf
http://web.mit.edu/stgs/pdfs/659yucca.pdf
Let's see here, a titanium shield that, in terms of the ammounts needed, will consume 2 to 3 times US annual consumtion of taitanium... in a radioactive environment... with robots... in 300 years...

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:34 pm**

Nuclear power is amazing as long as its fusion and not fission.

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:35 pm**

Libertarian California wrote:Nuclear power is amazing as long as its fusion and not fission.

What's wrong with fission?

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:37 pm**

Shaggai wrote:
Norstal wrote:Shame you didn't mention an alternative, so I'll say it for you:

natural gas. Cheap, not as clean as nuclear (sans nuclear waste), but not as polluting as coal.

Only if you like being able to set your water on fire. Fracking is terrible for the environment.

Pretty sure more testing needs to be done, as there are evidence the chemical levels of the water remains the same even before fracking or something like that.

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:37 pm**

Regnum Dominae wrote:
Libertarian California wrote:Nuclear power is amazing as long as its fusion and not fission.

What's wrong with fission?

While fusion is harder to do, more expensive, and requires a controlled environment, it is a lot safer than fission. Fusion has failsafes against dangerous meltdowns and doesn't release as many radioactive particles.

Fusion is also more powerful.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Nuclear_Fission_vs_Nuclear_Fusion

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:39 pm**

Libertarian California wrote:
Regnum Dominae wrote:What's wrong with fission?

While fusion is harder to do, more expensive, and requires a controlled environment, it is a lot safer than fission. Fusion has failsafes against dangerous meltdowns and doesn't release as many radioactive particles.

Fusion is also more powerful.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Nuclear_Fission_vs_Nuclear_Fusion

Not to mention the end product is less radioactive.

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:40 pm**

Libertarian California wrote:
Regnum Dominae wrote:What's wrong with fission?

While fusion is harder to do, more expensive, and requires a controlled environment, it is a lot safer than fission. Fusion has failsafes against dangerous meltdowns and doesn't release as many radioactive particles.

Fusion is also more powerful.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Nuclear_Fission_vs_Nuclear_Fusion

And we're many years away from being able to produce net energy from fusion. Until then, nuclear fission is the best energy source we've got.

NationStates

The Power of the Atom.