Nuclear waste. No big deal.

What does make the world turn?
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9886
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 25, 2017 2:43 am

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca ... c9717618f5

The title above is the last words of this Forbes article. Nuclear waste is described as one of the least important issues in the world today. 70,000 tonnes of waste generated in 60 years, with uranium (The densest material) making up most of that waste. All that waste could be stored in a very small land fill. The coal burning electricity generating industry creates that much toxic waste every 30 minutes. According to Scientific American, a coal burning station also releases more radioisotope as part of its waste than an equivalent nuclear power station does.

If all our electricity was generated from nuclear power, and everyone used as much electricity as the average American, each persons share of that waste would come to 40 grams per year. An utterly trivial amount.

Nuclear waste has never killed a single human. It has never been demonsfrated to have caused a single case of cancer. The waste from burning coal is estimated to kill at least a million people per year. Yet the morons in our society make a big deal about nuclear waste. Why ?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 25, 2017 5:13 am

Still getting your science from a business magazine. Can you make the connection?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9886
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:54 am

Actually, Bobbo, Forbes is a very reputable magazine. But I also get such data from several science mags. It is real.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 25, 2017 9:38 am

Yes........Its very reputable AS A BUSINESS MAGAZINE.

They have a deep invested interest in Nuclear Energy. I'm sure the statistics they provide can be verified....... and lied about at the same time. Its all in what assumptions/definitions they use...what data bases and so forth.

C'mon Lance....... you aren't saying anything new, each point has been disputed on other threads. If you are going to repost the same issues, you owe it to upgrade your sources.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 259
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby Phoenix76 » Fri Aug 25, 2017 10:48 am

Well, Lance & Bobbo, I'm not going to claim any expertise on this subject, but from what little I've read, nuclear waste can be stored in places such as cores drilled in Earth's rocky crust. More particularly in countries like Australia, which is not subject to earthquakes etc that are common in other parts of the world.

And again I read that the waste from Nuclear power generation is quite small, perhaps as compared to the waste from coal generated power.

So while Lance quotes from Forbes, maybe there is some truth to the matter. Let's face it, so many people are fearful of anything nuclear, yet it would appear that nuclear energy is a lot cleaner than coal energy.

So Bobbo, I'm sure you will have a comment, but I'm not stirring, I would like to understand the nuclear argument a lot better than I currently do.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19481
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:02 am

Anti-nuclear is a lot like anti-vax.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:44 am

Phoenix76 wrote: So Bobbo, I'm sure you will have a comment, but I'm not stirring, I would like to understand the nuclear argument a lot better than I currently do.

Well then.... read Business Magazines for ideas....but not as authority. Lance likes to pose as a scientist.... then he goes lame when reading anything that agrees with him.

Forbes...... they tout clean coal. ====== Know what I mean?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Austin Harper
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4817
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby Austin Harper » Fri Aug 25, 2017 12:53 pm

I was disappointed to see John Oliver's coverage of nuclear waste in the latest episode of Last Week Tonight. He made some good points about needing to deal with it safely but he seems to significantly overestimate how much actual waste is being produced.
phpBB [video]
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9886
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 25, 2017 7:57 pm

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ear-waste/

For Bobbo, who seems to have missed an important point.

I quoted Forbes as a reputable magazine to make a point. Sure, it is not the ultimate authority. However, as I said earlier, it merely summarised a whole lot of stuff I had picked up from other sources. The reference above is Scientific American and points out that more radio isotopes are released by coal burning power stations than generated by nuclear power stations.

It is easy to calculate that, if the whole world used nothing but nuclear power, at the level of electricity produced for the average American (40 grams of waste, mostly uranium metal, per person per year), then all the nuclear waste generated in 1,000 years could be buried in a single hole of 500 meters depth and 3000 meters diameter. Somewhere like the Namib Desert (south west Africa) or the Simpson Desert (Australia) which is arid, depopulated, and geologically stable. No real technical problem.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:34 pm

Ok..........Lance .......... as usual, you mostly escape being snide. Heh, heh....so I'll say it myself: I'm stuck on stupid. Maybe just a bit of stupid? ..... but .... if Forbes is "based on" Sci Amer then I would use the latter. This issue of yours is not at the "casual" level. So, I'm stuck on a bit of stupid, and you are lazy. If I had to choose.......I'd go with lazy.

That said, I have agreed from the get go that burying the waste was an acceptable solution to me. The problem has and will be political. So what are YOU going to do? Be a bit stuck on stupid yourself? The time to have educated the public to the Wonders of Big Nuke have passed. THE FUTURE IS ALL SOLAR. Get off stupid.

I assume you do recall my agreement with burying the waste. I assume you have forgotten (or the variant you refuse to remember) what my other remaining complaints were. But since the FUTURE IS ALL SOLAR....I don't see the need to dredge thru some Alt-Historical analysis.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9886
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:43 pm

The future may be all solar, as you say. But so far, it is not making much headway. Currently thermal solar energy is a dead duck, and solar panels are making rather a small contribution. That is, no more than 1% of electricity generation globally. Solar has problems, such as the need for energy storage to cover times when tne sun does not shine.

I have read a lot of articles on electricity generation, and the experts in this field tend to say that a range of generation technologies will be required.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Aug 26, 2017 12:47 am

Lance....true enough as per our prior threads. Nothing new on your end? Ha, ha......like I said: a bit stuck.

I was not clear on my stuck. I think I may be stuck on the number of deaths directly then indirectly from Big Nuke. Indeed, I'm happy to concede the direct deaths.... leaving the indirect but probably mainly the POTENTIAL direct and indirect deaths all in play. All coming back to an issue that is not scientific but can be added up in the vein of politics: VALUES.

Two ways to approach any subject: what could have been but never will be -or- lets get on with it.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9886
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Aug 26, 2017 1:12 am

As a good skeptic, I do not get wrapped up in fuzzy VALUES. My main value can be described as the greatest good for the greatest number, and that is quantifiable. So I look at the numbers. Where the numbers show a politically difficult item like nuclear energy is better, I ignore the political bull-shit and go with the data.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Aug 26, 2017 1:22 am

Hard to analyze the greatest good for the greatest number. In your mind, given the numbers and all, do you balance the greatest harm to the fewest people as well? Over what time frame?? Just to leap frog your failure to be on point: What kind of harms are offset against what kind of good??

.........................and to leap frog again: You call THAT a value system?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9886
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Aug 26, 2017 1:51 am

Numerically, you can treat harm as negative good.

On nuclear power, the harm is minimal, especially when compared to the alternatives.

Here are the numbers again. This is deaths caused by various electricity generating methods, per terrawatt hour of power produced.

Coal 161
Oil 36
Biofuel 12
Gas 4
Hydroelectricity 1.4
Solar in the range of 0.44 to 0.83
Wind 0.15
Nuclear 0.04.

That list excludes the minor methods such as tidal, diesel generators, ocean wave, geothermal etc.
But for me, to support nuclear, works well alongside my value of the greatest good (or least harm) to the greatest number.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Aug 26, 2017 2:55 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Solar has problems, such as the need for energy storage to cover times when tne sun does not shine.
Apparently, you're not up-to-date on your solar technology.

The Tesla Powerwall is currently in its second generation of production, and the first generation reviews are overwhelmingly positive. Nick Pfitzner, the first Australian to install a Powerwall, saved 92% on his annual electric bill in its first year of operation...from a yearly bill of $2289 down to $178.71, including one quarterly 'bill' that was actually a credit for $50 for buyback of power.

As far as requiring large numbers of sunny days, that's a myth. Germany is neither particularly sunny nor warm. I spent one July living near Frankfurt, which is latitudinally near the middle of Germany, and I had to purchase sweatshirts and an umbrella, because the summer clothing I brought left me freezing my arse off. However, as of the end of 2014, Germany was the world leader in solar energy usage, and it's only in the past couple years that China and Japan have surpassed them (based on total PV installed capacity).
Image

Also, scientists are constantly investigating and implementing methods for increasing the efficiency of solar cells...and that efficiency is rapidly increasing.

Lastly, while I agree that a mix of energy sources is the best plan, if we're going to mess around with nuclear, then we should concentrate our efforts on fusion, not fission. MIT just made a huge breakthrough by adding a third ion to the mix, thereby increasing energy output tenfold. Experts have revised their estimates, and are now saying we could be relying on nuclear fusion as our primary source of energy as early as 2030.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9886
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Aug 26, 2017 3:40 am

Nikki

Lack of sun does seem to be a bit of a problem at night !

The reason Tesla is making big strides is due to the fact that they supply incredibly expensive lithium battery packs, which have to be replaced every few years, in order to supply power at night. It is a money mine for Tesla.

I agree that nuclear fusion will be great, when humanity has it. It is on the 20 year plan. It is always 20 years in the future. Nuclear fission is here and now. The silly thing is that the West is rejecting nuclear fission just as the east is adopting it. There are 60 new nuclear power plants under construction, nearly all in India, China, or eastern Europe.

If solar energy is so great, how is it that it is still only 1% of global generation , while wind power just keeps right on growing?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Aug 26, 2017 3:42 am

Lance: we had a long discussion showing that "Deaths from Nukes" is not the only harm.

Do you recognize that being very narrow in what you choose to consider is quite striking?.........and that choice comes from your value system????....... however one might want to label that/those values?????

Thinking you aren't wrapped up in fuzzy value systems is just beyond laughable. Humans swim in an ocean of values/emotions. Focus on the fuzzy.... and get rid of the plastic gyro.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Aug 26, 2017 3:44 am

Lance Kennedy wrote: If solar energy is so great, how is it that it is still only 1% of global generation , while wind power just keeps right on growing?

They are both growing. Solar is new sophisticated tech....windmills have been around a long time.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby TJrandom » Sat Aug 26, 2017 4:42 am

The Forbes article author`s estimate of 70,000 tonnes over the past 60 years doesn`t make sense. Fukushima has produced more than that in contaminated water and is adding over 200 tonnes each day. I do not know the volume of the contaminated soil, but guess it too exceeds the Forbes number.

And beyond the volume, one could not safely store that volume in one location of suggested size anyway - for risk of criticality.

It seems to me that the greatest risk posed by nuclear waste is in the current ad-hoc method of storage - mostly in tanks above the reactors and thus at risk from earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Aug 26, 2017 4:55 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Nikki

Lack of sun does seem to be a bit of a problem at night !

The reason Tesla is making big strides is due to the fact that they supply incredibly expensive lithium battery packs, which have to be replaced every few years, in order to supply power at night. It is a money mine for Tesla.

I agree that nuclear fusion will be great, when humanity has it. It is on the 20 year plan. It is always 20 years in the future. Nuclear fission is here and now. The silly thing is that the West is rejecting nuclear fission just as the east is adopting it. There are 60 new nuclear power plants under construction, nearly all in India, China, or eastern Europe.

If solar energy is so great, how is it that it is still only 1% of global generation , while wind power just keeps right on growing?
So, as usual, you read NONE of the links I posted. I'm not even surprised, Lance. You've already formed your opinion; a nuclear explosion wouldn't budge you from it.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9886
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Aug 26, 2017 4:58 am

TJ

The 70,000 tonnes of waste over 60 years is not contaminated water. It is the tonnage of radio isotopes.

Nikki

Don't get your knickers in a twist. I looked at your references (or the two I was able to download).

Everything is improving, sure. Solar cells, batteries, and experiments in nuclear fusion. But until it becomes solidly commercial, it is simply of interest. Nothing more. Nuclear fusion remains in the misty future, and solar cells remain a minor player. That may change, but things are today as they are.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby TJrandom » Sat Aug 26, 2017 5:07 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:TO

The 70,000 tonnes of waste over 60 years is not contaminated water. It is the tonnage of radio isotopes.


I guessed that too - but did need to guess. And as such, his article is at best misleading. Radio isotopes are not stored in isolation, and of course not as a concentrate.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9886
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Aug 26, 2017 5:14 am

Nuclear waste is primarily spent reactor fuel rods, and the biggest part is 'spent uranium ', also called uranium 238. They are kept under water for a few years (average 10) for the short half life isotopes to decay. Then they are put into special stainless steel and cement barrels (called dry casks) for a period of many decades. There are major storehouses of such waste, with waste up to 50 years old, waiting for permanent disposal. They are not terribly dangerous at that stage, since the steel and cement is enough to prevent radiation passing out into the environment.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby TJrandom » Sat Aug 26, 2017 6:33 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Nuclear waste is primarily spent reactor fuel rods, and the biggest part is 'spent uranium ', also called uranium 238. They are kept under water for a few years (average 10) for the short half life isotopes to decay. Then they are put into special stainless steel and cement barrels (called dry casks) for a period of many decades. There are major storehouses of such waste, with waste up to 50 years old, waiting for permanent disposal. They are not terribly dangerous at that stage, since the steel and cement is enough to prevent radiation passing out into the environment.


I believe the SOP is to store those spent rods in the cooling pools above the reactors until those pools are full of rods - and then to move them to casks - only as fast as is necessary to create space for the next incoming rods.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Aug 26, 2017 6:58 am

SO?/?/????==What about the contaminated water? You can't store/make safe all that water.......so like a good Forbes, you don't even include it in your analysis.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... r-fallout/

Still not clear. Looks like an issue no one wants to deal with.....but waste water has Cesium 137 with a half life of 30 years. From prior discussions, IIRC there were other much longer lasting and more damaging radioactive particles in the waste water?---and certainly if said water is mixed in with exploded containment chambers.

Forbes/Lance = which one is Hiding the ball?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9886
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Aug 26, 2017 7:24 am

Bobbo

There is no such thing as 100% "safe ". Recently a couple of people sunbathing on a beach in Portugal were killed when a small plane crashed on the beach, landing on top of them. If you are not "safe " sunbathing on a beach then there is no safety.

The truth is that safety is always relative. I do not claim that nuclear power is "safe ". Just safer than most forms of generating power.. I have shown the deaths caused by various methods of generating electricity. Nuclear power still kills, but to a lesser degree than other methods.

On the radioactive matter in waste water.
Of course, if enough is present, it is a hazard, or even lethal.
How much is needed to be lethal?
Research has shown that a dose delivered over a short period of time (say one hour) of 100 millisieverts or less is unlikely to cause harm. So if you want to determine if a report of radioactive pollution is harmful, check the news reports to see how much exposure is delivered. For the Fukushima disaster, the maximum was about 50 millisieverts over one year, except for inside the actual plant.

For comparison, the people living in the town of Ramsa in Iran receive 250 millisieverts per year, and have shown no increase in cancer rates or other harms compared to the rest of Iran. That extraordinary exposure comes from radio isotopes in natural geothermal waters.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Aug 26, 2017 8:06 am

Out of sight.... out of mind. Just let the ocean dilute it all and assme nothing bad will happen.

What if my value system is against such pollution. Can that be factored into your "Most Good" formula.... or does that only work for metal rods?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9886
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Aug 26, 2017 9:03 am

Bobbo

If your value system is against all, pollution regardless of how little, you are going to be a very busy boy. The pollution from nuclear power, even after an accident like Fukushima, is miniscule compared to most of industry. As I pointed out, the tonnage of toxic waste from 60 years of nuclear power is equal to 30 minutes of toxic waste from coal burning power. And coal burning power stations pour more radio isotopes out as waste than nuclear power stations, and do not contain the waste, as the nuclear industry does.

You may be Don Quixote, Bobbo, but it is important to make sure you tilt at the right windmills.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9886
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Aug 26, 2017 9:36 am

https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... -reactors/

Interesting to see the Dutch taking another look at thorium as a nuclear fuel. It has many advantages, including massive availability (enough to supply the world for the next 10,000 years), greater safety, even fewer wastes, and possi ly lower cost.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19481
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sat Aug 26, 2017 12:43 pm

TJrandom wrote:The Forbes article author`s estimate of 70,000 tonnes over the past 60 years doesn`t make sense. Fukushima has produced more than that in contaminated water and is adding over 200 tonnes each day. I do not know the volume of the contaminated soil, but guess it too exceeds the Forbes number.

And beyond the volume, one could not safely store that volume in one location of suggested size anyway - for risk of criticality.

It seems to me that the greatest risk posed by nuclear waste is in the current ad-hoc method of storage - mostly in tanks above the reactors and thus at risk from earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.

Apples and oranges. The water from Fukushima can be settled so that the contamination is left behind. Not a permanent problem of that magnitude.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Anomaly
Poster
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:11 pm

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby Anomaly » Sat Aug 26, 2017 4:28 pm

So a comedian with his comedy show is entertainment and not a well of knowledge to inform and educate the masses. To quote the Forbes article:

On Sunday night, the brilliant comedic satirist, John Oliver, presented a very funny, if basically wrong, segment on nuclear waste.


Dear God, and I am not even religious. A comedian who is funny, is not the intellectual heavyweight he is imagined to be. And a scientist who gets confused when the funny man on television is just saying what the writers wrote for him. That is some inception like satire within satire.

NUCLEAR WASTE – No big deal..... Does it matter what John got wrong? Probably not, since the country has entered an alternative reality anyway, often what John rails against, and will only remember, NUCLEAR WASTE – BAD.

If they care at all.


So he see people as stupid and implies they possibly don`t care. A scientist who believes people do not act out of a rationale like himself, but simply act on irrational ideas. No wonder there is a disconnect between people like himself and the public in general.

Why just not promote nuclear power in comparison to other energy sources as the better health and environmental option. Acknowledge nuclear waste as bad, but still the better option. And never again expect comedy central to educate the public on this subject or any other.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby TJrandom » Sat Aug 26, 2017 5:05 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
TJrandom wrote:The Forbes article author`s estimate of 70,000 tonnes over the past 60 years doesn`t make sense. Fukushima has produced more than that in contaminated water and is adding over 200 tonnes each day. I do not know the volume of the contaminated soil, but guess it too exceeds the Forbes number.

And beyond the volume, one could not safely store that volume in one location of suggested size anyway - for risk of criticality.

It seems to me that the greatest risk posed by nuclear waste is in the current ad-hoc method of storage - mostly in tanks above the reactors and thus at risk from earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.

Apples and oranges. The water from Fukushima can be settled so that the contamination is left behind. Not a permanent problem of that magnitude.


Yes - not permanent, but not incorrect to point out the Forbes sleight of hand. Indeed there are processes to decontaminate the water to an acceptable, but still controversial level, so as to permit release into the ocean - but not totally free of isotopes until they decay naturally over the eons and are mixed with the greater volume of the oceans and thus diluted. The soil mostly just gets stored instead of treated.

Forbes earned a long nose award for this one.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9886
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Aug 26, 2017 7:56 pm

A simple calculation.
There are 50 billion tonnes of radioactive uranium 235 isotope in the world's oceans.

Now take an extreme case of nuclear waste. If there were 12 billion people on Earth, and they all consumed electricity at the same rate as modern Americans, and every bit of that electricity was generated using traditional nuclear power, and all the waste was dumped in the ocean for 1000 years, how much waste ?

It would increase the load of radio isotopes in the world's oceans by 1%. And the great bulk of that would be inert uranium 238.

Hope that puts this into perspective. The amount of waste generated by nuclear power stations is just miniscule.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19481
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sat Aug 26, 2017 8:37 pm

As a four hundred foot kaiju I agree. Nothing to worry about.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby TJrandom » Sat Aug 26, 2017 11:01 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:A simple calculation.
There are 50 billion tonnes of radioactive uranium 235 isotope in the world's oceans.

Now take an extreme case of nuclear waste. If there were 12 billion people on Earth, and they all consumed electricity at the same rate as modern Americans, and every bit of that electricity was generated using traditional nuclear power, and all the waste was dumped in the ocean for 1000 years, how much waste ?

It would increase the load of radio isotopes in the world's oceans by 1%. And the great bulk of that would be inert uranium 238.

Hope that puts this into perspective. The amount of waste generated by nuclear power stations is just miniscule.


Exactly why nobody would be concerned... :roll:

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2042
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Aug 27, 2017 12:33 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Don't get your knickers in a twist. I looked at your references (or the two I was able to download).
As if. And you didn't read my refs, as evidenced by your subsequent comments. In fact, it's doubtful that you even read my post.
Lance Kennedy wrote:Nuclear fusion remains in the misty future
Wrong.
Lance Kennedy wrote:It is on the 20 year plan. It is always 20 years in the future.
Wrong again.
Nikki Nyx wrote:MIT just made a huge breakthrough by adding a third ion to the mix, thereby increasing energy output tenfold. Experts have revised their estimates, and are now saying we could be relying on nuclear fusion as our primary source of energy as early as 2030.
Not 'in the misty future.' Not 'on the 20-year plan.' But 'we could be relying on fusion as our primary source of energy by 2030,' thanks to this breakthrough, according to experts.

Lance Kennedy wrote:The reason Tesla is making big strides is due to the fact that they supply incredibly expensive lithium battery packs, which have to be replaced every few years, in order to supply power at night.
A warranty for 5,000 cycles with no more than a 30% loss of its initial capacity over a ten-year period isn't remotely 'every few years.' And the price has lowered drastically per kwh.

Lance Kennedy wrote:If solar energy is so great, how is it that it is still only 1% of global generation , while wind power just keeps right on growing?
Wherever you got that statistic from, it's wrong. The 1% threshold was passed globally three years ago, in 2014. The US rate alone for the past 12 months was 1.8%, according to the EIA.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9886
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Aug 27, 2017 1:56 am

Nikki

Nuclear fusion has been promised for the "near future " for the past 40 odd years. It is always 20 years in the future. If and when it becomes mainstream, I will celebrate, since that will be a major forward step for humanity. But it is naive to believe the promises of experts, who have been making those same promises for so long. I assume we will have it some time within the next century. Earlier would be great, but I am not holding my breath.

On the Tesla battery pack.
Your figures are roughly what I remembered. A 30% drop every ten years means an ongoing expense.

Solar power may become the be all and end all in time. But so far, it still has limited use. I have no problem with solar power. I may end up using it myself. But it is naive to believe that it will be become the one and only any time soon. I accept that the rational approach is to go with a range of electricity options.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10234
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Aug 27, 2017 2:10 am

Lance: its good to see you approve a Moonshot for adoption of Green Energy....... aka.......get off Fossil Fuels asap.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9886
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Nuclear waste. No big deal.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Aug 27, 2017 2:45 am

Bobbo

I am all in favour of getting off fossil fuels.
Coal is the worst, and our priority should be to arrange things so that coal stays in the ground. To do that, we need to promote all alternatives. Lots of people talk about renewables as the ultimate, but nuclear is also non fossil fuel and has a part to play. Currently hydroelectricity is the main renewable at 71% of all electricity generated by renewables. But nuclear can also play a strong role in this.


Return to “Science, Technology, and Mathematics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest