Jump to content


Am I still allowed to question climate change?

Recommended Posts

I cannot disagree with the outcome, like some do, without giving a really good explanation and backed up by facts.

The longest-lived plutonium-244, with a half-life of 80.8 million years; am I meant calculate the costs of its disposal ;)

 

Something that long lived is not especially radioactive so disposal of it isn't a problem at all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cannot disagree with the outcome, like some do, without giving a really good explanation and backed up by facts.

The longest-lived plutonium-244, with a half-life of 80.8 million years; am I meant calculate the costs of its disposal ;)

 

Those numbers were about fatalities. You're now commenting on costs. I have no problem discussing costs, but I'm not pretending that they're somehow the same thing because they both contain numbers.

 

 

 

U238 has a half life of (if memory serves) 4 billion years. This is mostly what is in the fuel, although it's not usually the active part of the fuel (except in Pu breeders).

80 million is a lot less than 4 billion.

 

Longer half-lives are associates with lower rates of radiation emission. For rather obvious reasons if you think about it.

What you want to watch out for is stuff with intermediate half lives: hundreds or thousands of years. These are radioactive enough to be highly dangerous and yet long-lived enough that you can't just wait for them to become safe.

 

Nuclear waste is amongst the nastiest stuff on Earth. It's likely that it will end up being burned as fuel in a later generation of reactors, failing that it can be buried underground. In the meantime is has such a small volume compared to most of humanities waste that you can just park it somewhere and put up a big keep-away sign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how did we end up with current government energy strategy?

 

Greenpeace and associated uneducated envirowhiners.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greenpeace and associated uneducated envirowhiners.....

 

Yes. Which brings me around to my earlier point.

These people don't want the solution, they want the issue. A solution would take away their power and influence. So they exaggerate the problem and reject the solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes.

The 'which power source is least dangerous' contest was won some posts back by nuclear.

We're now into the fine detail of exactly how many thousands of times more likely is it to get killed by renewables than by nuclear.

Does anybody care? Is it not enough that renewables are over a thousand times more dangerous; on top of being more expensive, unreliable and with a far higher effective CO2 output?

On this record and reality how did we end up with current government energy strategy?

 

I was listening to the BBC radio whilst driving, about a new tidal barrage, it said it would not be as expensive as nuclear.

The tone was the nuclear was expensive, it does depend on what is included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was listening to the BBC radio whilst driving, about a new tidal barrage, it said it would not be as expensive as nuclear.

The tone was the nuclear was expensive, it does depend on what is included.

 

Yes. They lied.

I sure it's a deniable lie. A combination of cherry-picking, false accounting and such. But it's a lie. And a massive lie at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuclear waste is amongst the nastiest stuff on Earth. It's likely that it will end up being burned as fuel in a later generation of reactors, failing that it can be buried underground. In the meantime is has such a small volume compared to most of humanities waste that you can just park it somewhere and put up a big keep-away sign.

 

The USA has I think about 50,000 tonnes of high level waste, which is the total amount ever created by them.

 

Assuming that was all in flasks, you could comfortably store it in a football stadium.

 

Mind you people say its waste. I see that as 50,000 tonnes of fuel for a molten salt reactor that will just produce lots of lead at the very end of the cycle.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greenpeace and associated uneducated envirowhiners.....

 

Because even Trump and Cameron cannot bluff their way past the science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because even Trump and Cameron cannot bluff their way past the science.

 

Oh yes "the science". What does that even mean?

Science is not a thing to be either true or false. It's a method of gaining knowledge.

What is it that you think "the science" says that Cameron disagrees with.

Anyway Cameron is no longer even an MP. What's he got to do with anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cannot disagree with the outcome, like some do, without giving a really good explanation and backed up by facts.

The longest-lived plutonium-244, with a half-life of 80.8 million years; am I meant calculate the costs of its disposal ;)

 

I thought we were talking about the number of people killed per terawatt hour of power produced...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The USA has I think about 50,000 tonnes of high level waste, which is the total amount ever created by them.

 

Assuming that was all in flasks, you could comfortably store it in a football stadium.

 

Mind you people say its waste. I see that as 50,000 tonnes of fuel for a molten salt reactor that will just produce lots of lead at the very end of the cycle.....

 

Quite so.

The Th cycle technology has yet to pass commercial viability tests but it's facility for burning waste from traditional reactors is a pretty big bonus.

I think the waste from these reactors is inert after about 50 years.

 

---------- Post added 12-01-2017 at 11:35 ----------

 

I thought we were talking about the number of people killed per terawatt hour of power produced...

 

Yes apparently we've moved on to costs so that those arguing against nuclear on safety grounds can remain in the debate without conceding.

There's a rather obvious crude segue on the previous page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because even Trump and Cameron cannot bluff their way past the science.

 

That's the beauty of science. It's rather difficult to bluff.

 

The science tells us that you can store and look after spent fuel safely. It tells us that we can burn all that "waste" as a fuel in a LFTR reactor. Such a device would let you fuel the entire UK - transport, heating, electric, everything on about 120 tonnes of thorium a year. That's about oh I dunno 500 milkcrates of metal. To run everything.

 

So why isn't it being done? Because you have organisations like Greenpeace and FoE whining incessanatly about things they are scared of and don't understand, because people before them whined about them because they didn't understand, and because it's just too much work to actually learn something and understand. No it's easier to just be afraid and want to live in caves and knit yoghurt becaue without that fight without the struggle they would be nothing and irrelevant.

 

I'd put them up against a wall and shoot the lot of them. They are the biggest block to progress in the entire world at the moment.

 

---------- Post added 12-01-2017 at 11:47 ----------

 

Quite so.

The Th cycle technology has yet to pass commercial viability tests but it's facility for burning waste from traditional reactors is a pretty big bonus.

I think the waste from these reactors is inert after about 50 years

 

The biggest problem is Kr-85. It gets sparged out and needs storing for a few years - it's a gas, theres a lot of it, and it's rather active. It can be used as a low grade heat source but it's rather tricky to add back in for transmutation by neutron bombardment although people are looking at doing this. Problem is that reduces the breeding ratio if you do - you can get round that by taking the Pa out and letting it decay to U-233 and then theres more fuel (which improves the neutron budget) but that's another processing step.

 

However all these are still minor issues to our current waste storage problem, which isn't really a problem at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.