No more nuclear power for the US?

[Dr Adequate]

Let's see ... Obama supporters say we shouldn't worry about massive debt 10 years from now when we have an economic crisis now, yet use concern about corroding casks 5000 years from now as an excuse to doing nothing about the energy crisis now. Seems a little inconsistent,.

How does digging a big hole in the ground solve the energy crisis?

 

[DC]

How does digging a big hole in the ground solve the energy crisis?

when you find alot lot oil in that huge hole....

 

[Minadin]

We've switched to nukular power.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Ah, the old groundwater argument. The steel casks might corrode in 5,000 years.

I don't know where you got that figure from. Is it in the report?

I'm sorry, but I have a lot more faith in humans 5,000 years from now to figuree out what to do if the casks corrode than this guy does. If they don't know what to do that could only mean some catastrophic event has happened and the corroding casks in the desert will be the least of their concerns.

This seems to be whatever the opposite of a circular argument is.

The reason for spending all this money on building this particular facility is that it's meant to last for a million years. If it doesn't have to, then we don't have to build this facility, and can do something cheaper instead.

 

[WildCat]

I don't know where you got that figure from. Is it in the report?

No, it was in the Chu interview you posted, but apparently don't remember.

This seems to be whatever the opposite of a circular argument is.

It actually only requires you to read the links you post. You do remmeber the Chu interview you posted, yes?

The reason for spending all this money on building this particular facility is that it's meant to last for a million years. If it doesn't have to, then we don't have to build this facility, and can do something cheaper instead.

They haven't said they're looking to do something cheaper. They said they're going to look for another site.

Is there a site on planet Earth that will remain stable for 1 million years? Or maybe they intend to study this for 1 milllion years?

 

[Dr Adequate]

No, it was in the Chu interview you posted, but apparently don't remember.

For some reason I did not memorize his every word, no.

It actually only requires you to read the links you post. You do remmeber the Chu interview you posted, yes?

This is not a reply to the statement to which you are ostensibly replying.

They haven't said they're looking to do something cheaper. They said they're going to look for another site.

Nor is this.

However, since you mention it, another site would be cheaper, if it was dry. And the Chu interview does show that he'd thinking of different ideas altogether.

Is there a site on planet Earth that will remain stable for 1 million years?

The middle of a craton can be quite stable. Nevada, by contrast, is the third most earthquake-prone state in the US.

 

[Dan O.]

The middle of a craton can be quite stable. Nevada, by contrast, is the third most earthquake-prone state in the US.

The fault with this site created the uplift that naturally sheds surface water to make the site more suitable. The underground site would probably barely even notice an earthquake unless the fault actually intersected the tunnels. It's the amplification of seismic waves at the surface and in man-made structures that causes damage.

Over a long term, continued uplift and surface erosion could bring the material back to the surface. I presume that the geologic record of this site indicated that this is not a significant concern.


I still don't think the site has been abandoned. It looks more like a political maneuver to stop the flow on money into the state for studying the site.

 

[BeAChooser]

It looks more like a political maneuver to stop the flow on money into the state for studying the site.

It's a maneuver to stop nuclear development ... a core agenda of a large portion of those who support him and the democrats. Call it payback.

 

[Belz...]

Large scale hydroelectric projects are hardly popular amoung environmentalists.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Belz...]

Well, the French ARE stupid

Ahem!

 

[Belz...]

Not particularly. The more radioactive something is the shorter the half-life. It would degrade to a much lower-level threat long before the chicken little claim of "it will be dangerous for 10,000 years!".

'Sides, 10,000 years isn't that bad compared to other toxic stuff...

 

[malcolmxwarrior]

Here in Canada less than 3%. Most of the diesel powered generators are used in remote locations or as back-up in places like hospitals and other large facilities.

In terms of power generation, oil isn't really a factor. I agree though, there are many other alternatives that need to be pursued.

I was mainly talking about cars. most cars run on oil right?

And I'm sure cars can run on many other entities. Like the aforementioned nuclear, hemp Etc.

 

[Furcifer]

How much crude oil do you think is being burned to generate electricity?

I have no idea. enlighten me.

Here in Canada less than 3%.

I was mainly talking about cars. most cars run on oil right?

I thought we were talking about burning crude oil to generate electricity. But yes, cars still run on oil where I am from.

 

[Hindmost]

The vast majority of high level waste decays to stable isotopes within 300 years. The few elements left are long lived stuff like Pu, U, other transuranics in smaller amounts and Tc. The transuranics can be put right back into a plant and burned if recycling is used.

So, 5000 years takes care of most of the issue.

glenn