Patrick Moore is on the nuclear bandwagon.

Igloo, lets put it this way: suppose there was a law that stated any financial debts that a person leaves behind when they die are assumed by his surviving family. Naturally, youd do eveyrthing you could to keep your affairs in order and pass on as little burden to your heirs as possible right? Why should we care less about nuclear waste?
 
Thorgalaeg said:
OMG, it is you who should learn something mate. Radiactive decay is exponential respect to time, becuase time is in the exponent of the equation, but the exponent is negative. So this means that radioactivity decreases more slowly with time. So lets consider an isotope with an halflife of only 100 years: After 100 years his radioactivity will be a 50% the original one, after another 100 years it will be a 25%, after another 100 year 12,5%... so if some nuclear waste formed mainly by this nucleoid is originally only 50 times more radioactive that the acceptable level, you will need about 600 years to obtain an (in theory) safe material.
All this being optimistic and supposing that the next nucleoid in the decay chain is stable. Probably it will be another radiactive one with his own decay rate.

Yes, I've seen such analysis many times. Even the most pessimistic analyses show that our ability to contain is well outpacing the buildup.

FYI, I spent 6 1/2 years in the nuclear industry and worked closely with the waste management group. I'm well aware of what our capability to contain is and trust me if there was any reason for concern I would be front and centre of protest.
 
No matter how much you may or may not know , theres no way anyone can know whats going to happen in the next 100,000 years.
 
Give it up, Bozo. You sound like a creationist with the "we can't know" argument in the face of someone who has spent six years in the nuclear industry. Sounding like a creationist is not good. :p
 
Erik Mesoy said:
Give it up, Bozo. You sound like a creationist with the "we can't know" argument in the face of someone who has spent six years in the nuclear industry. Sounding like a creationist is not good. :p
Is it surprising that someone who worked for six years in the nuclear industry thinks that nuclear waste is hunky dory?

Go ahead laugh at me now, but our tumor riddled, three eyed, flipper footed descendants in the next 100,000 years will stand by me. Well, they would if they could stand on the flippers.
 
Bozo Erectus said:
Is it surprising that someone who worked for six years in the nuclear industry thinks that nuclear waste is hunky dory?

Not surprising at all, because this staunch environmentalist now knows the facts behind nuclear waste and has learned that the situation is very much under control.


Bozo Erectus said:
Go ahead laugh at me now, but our tumor riddled, three eyed, flipper footed descendants in the next 100,000 years will stand by me. Well, they would if they could stand on the flippers.

Okay: :lol:
 
Bozo Erectus said:
our tumor riddled, three eyed, flipper footed descendants in the next 100,000 years
Do you mind if I hope that what little radiation we receive instead promotes evolution instead turning us into Gary Larson cartoon people?
 
Igloo, lets put it this way: suppose there was a law that stated any financial debts that a person leaves behind when they die are assumed by his surviving family.

Welcome to the concept of National Debt.

Sadly, the majority of people seem to have the logical processes I describe. They don't care about the damage, if it's off-loaded to someone in the future. That's a FACT, that they don't care.

You can try to 'suade people to modify their altruistic behaviour patterns, but good luck. You'll note that my system (curing aging) results in the problem becoming 'our' problem!

(We both win, you get altruistic behaviour, I get longevity)
 
I'm not arguing that it's okay to leave a legacy for future generations, I'm arguing that the use of nuclear power doesn't leave a legacy for future generations.

So they may have to ensure it remains contained, that's still a pittance compared to the legacy of burning hydrocarbons.
 
Once again, its completely untrue that our energy choices are limited to hydrocarbons or nuclear.
 
Bozo Erectus said:
Once again, its completely untrue that our energy choices are limited to hydrocarbons or nuclear.

Once again, to supply the bulk of energy needs in the forseeable future, it is absolutely true.

If we could possibly get renewables to the point where they could supply our needs in the near future, I'd be standing with you right now, but I've been working in the energy field for a long time and am well aware of what is possible. Note that the other energy sector worker on this thread agrees with me.

We do need to start implementing renewables, we need to invest the money to develop them. I am a paid member of the Canadian Wind Energy Association. But they cannot meet the need at this time, and will not be able to any time soon.

We also need to implement conservation, start by increasing hydro rates to meet the actual cost of production. I buy energy efficient bulbs and appliances for my home. I'm meticulous about shutting off anything I'm not using. It too will not meet the demand.

Trust me, if it were rpagmatically possible, I'd be speaking loudly in favour of reneables and conservation. But my experience tells me otherwise, and it took a long time for me to accept that.
 
Sysyphus, ok fair enough, but my views on the wisdom of using nuclear power arent going to change. There are many different opinions about this issue, and people who havent been employed by the nuclear power industry are entitled to theirs as well, as Im sure youd agree.
 
You wanna do something about it? Push solar technology. Take an affirmative action to speed the progress of this (needed) technology!
 
I know theres no single alternative that would match the energy output of nuclear, but as you said earlier El, nuclear could never meet all our needs either. Increased investment in renewable alternatives, and diversifying our energy portfolio with wind, solar, geothermal, hydrogen, you name it, is infinitely better than pouring money into a dirty technology.
 
Bozo Erectus said:
I know theres no single alternative that would match the energy output of nuclear, but as you said earlier El, nuclear could never meet all our needs either. Increased investment in renewable alternatives, and diversifying our energy portfolio with wind, solar, geothermal, hydrogen, you name it, is infinitely better than pouring money into a dirty technology.

Absolutely, I'm currently working in hydrogen actually, and am working on stationary projects, which will help make wind and solar more viable as they can mitigate the problem of spurious availability.

But we're a long way from making that happen, and our electricity needs are very large and very immediate, especially if we want to begin eradicate the use of oil in vehicles very soon. Nuclear is the cleanest way of providing that need the soonest.
 
Back
Top Bottom