Obelix Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Would you care to show me where I said these holes existed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 I'd take more nuclear plants over fracking any day. Why? The highest level nuclear waste takes 250,000 years to become safe. That's an unimaginable length of time. How long would the worst fracking scenario take to heal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megalithic Posted July 25, 2013 Author Share Posted July 25, 2013 Why? The highest level nuclear waste takes 250,000 years to become safe. That's an unimaginable length of time. How long would the worst fracking scenario take to heal? Who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Why? The highest level nuclear waste takes 250,000 years to become safe. That's an unimaginable length of time. How long would the worst fracking scenario take to heal? No it's 250,000 years - and no high level waste takes that long. After ten half lifes have gone it's safe, and no high level waste has a half life of 25000 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Would you care to show me where I said these holes existed? If it was easy they would already exist in sufficient numbers. Germany built two facilities that then leaked or collapsed, pretty damn quick. The challenge is where to put the stuff for between 10,000 and to 1 million years. Think about that. 50 years of power generation gives us a problem for hundreds of generations at the very least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Sorry but please answer me this first... Would you care to show me where I said these holes existed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Sorry but please answer me this first... Would you care to show me where I said these holes existed? The point I'm making is that the waste is not easy to deal with, like you claimed. If it was easy to deal with your holes would exist and the waste would be in them already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Dealing with nuclear waste is trivially easy? Then why don't we have any national long-term plan for dealing with it? Even the French who have a good record of reprocessing don't have any long-term storage in place yet. There is nothing trivial about it. ---------- Post added 25-07-2013 at 22:46 ---------- We don't have many modern reactors. Modern ones seem impossible to build - companies that were lined up keep pulling out. We were talking about increasing our nuclear power capacity, which means building new reactors, we aren't going to somehow clone ones built to a 50 year old design. So, modern reactor, very little waste. Storage, perfectly feasible... ---------- Post added 26-07-2013 at 07:25 ---------- The point I'm making is that the waste is not easy to deal with, like you claimed. If it was easy to deal with your holes would exist and the waste would be in them already From an engineering and technical perspective it's a tractable problem. It's not easy like walking to the shops, but it's not difficult like inventing a fusion power generator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 The point I'm making is that the waste is not easy to deal with, like you claimed. If it was easy to deal with your holes would exist and the waste would be in them already Again, can you please show me where I said these holes in the ground existed? ---------- Post added 26-07-2013 at 09:57 ---------- We were talking about increasing our nuclear power capacity, which means building new reactors, we aren't going to somehow clone ones built to a 50 year old design. So, modern reactor, very little waste. Storage, perfectly feasible... ---------- Post added 26-07-2013 at 07:25 ---------- From an engineering and technical perspective it's a tractable problem. It's not easy like walking to the shops, but it's not difficult like inventing a fusion power generator. More importantly, it's a solved problem. Vitrification of the waste after the really short term stuff has cooled off, then transport and dump in a suitable hole. The problem is the green brigade who dont understand, dont want to understand and have an irrational fear of it. In a previous life they would be chucking shoes into weaving looms..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hillpig Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 The facilities I mentioned were built by a Norwegian/Finnish company and were originally intended to house the machines and facilities needed to process "clean coal". As I understood it at the time the coal would be delivered and burned underground, he waste stored in the seams from were the coal would extracted and the power delivered to the grid. Due to the political situation in the 80s and the fact that the initial investment would have been huge the scheme stopped but not before the cavernous facilities were made suitable for the storage of nuclear waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now