Choose your battles my friend.
Democrats give american people the finger
- Thread starter Twin Fist
- Start date
- Status
WC_lun
Senior Master
I actually agree with this part of your post. However, I and many others, don't believe drilling everywhere will do much of anything to achieve this goal. Nuclear power might, if the waste can be managed and the safety concerns can be addressed. Having a Japan type catastrophe here in the States would not be helpful at all. Though I do realize we are less succeptable to tsunami causing that kind of havoc here.
Choose your battles my friend.
And equally importantly, find your common ground. There almost always is some.
As an example particular to this site, TF and I fought like cat-and-dog for a while a few years back.
Over a little time tho', you discover that no person is uni-dimensional or defined solely by a single view on a topic. You uncover that there are things you agree on, positions you understand or stances that you admire a person for holding (even those that you don't subscribe to yourself in some cases).
That is how you grow into protagonists on certain issues of contention and avoid being antagonists - and along the way you learn a little something about your own prejudices and 'weaknesses'.
In the end, that is the key to useful discourse out here in Net-land i.e. remembering that there is a person on the other side of the computer screen and that that person will be just as complicated and prone to emotional responses as you are.
Big Don
Sr. Grandmaster
The sooner begun, the sooner finished. Poo pooing the idea by saying it is too long term and not doing it, doesn't get anything done...
Steve
Mostly Harmless
In a nutshell, my opinions on this thread are pretty simple.
First, energy independance is a matter of national security. Making oil companies richer isn't. Nuclear power is necessary, but as I understand things now, the nuclear facilities are storing the waste and paying into a fund that will, hopefully, one day, pay for disposal if we can ever figure out how to do that. Makes me a little nervous.
We also need to encourage other forms of renewable energy including wind farms (yes, even though they can be ugly and kill stupid birds), solar, biomass and hydroelectric as well as looking into other new sources of energy.
Third, no one here is an expert on the subject (that I'm aware of, correct me if I'm wrong). So, I'm immediately suspicious of anyone who's overly confident and entrenched in his or her position, on either side. From what I've read, the supply of oil we have is both measured and intentional and had little to do with where they're authorized to drill.
Finally, this thread is a blatant troll job, and TF needs to be called on it. If he were interested in dialogue, the thread could have had a more accurate, less inflammatory title. Suggesting that the Democrats (whoever that might include) are giving Americans (whomever that might include) "the finger" is a juvenile, immature attempt to bait conflict.
First, energy independance is a matter of national security. Making oil companies richer isn't. Nuclear power is necessary, but as I understand things now, the nuclear facilities are storing the waste and paying into a fund that will, hopefully, one day, pay for disposal if we can ever figure out how to do that. Makes me a little nervous.
We also need to encourage other forms of renewable energy including wind farms (yes, even though they can be ugly and kill stupid birds), solar, biomass and hydroelectric as well as looking into other new sources of energy.
Third, no one here is an expert on the subject (that I'm aware of, correct me if I'm wrong). So, I'm immediately suspicious of anyone who's overly confident and entrenched in his or her position, on either side. From what I've read, the supply of oil we have is both measured and intentional and had little to do with where they're authorized to drill.
Finally, this thread is a blatant troll job, and TF needs to be called on it. If he were interested in dialogue, the thread could have had a more accurate, less inflammatory title. Suggesting that the Democrats (whoever that might include) are giving Americans (whomever that might include) "the finger" is a juvenile, immature attempt to bait conflict.
Eh-nuclear engineer, started career at commercial nuclear power plant. I've run research reactors, gas burning power plants, gas turbines, wind turbines, experimental diesel generators, and-after a more than a decade detour doing weapons work and physics research-currently running a coal-fired power plant.
I think that makes me some sort of an expert.:ultracool
On energy independence, anyway-don't know anything-okay, don't know much about oil, or drilling for it...........
.......except that there's less of it on the planet every day.
Last edited:
I'm not as expert on nuclear as Jeff is but I do have expertise in the field as I am a power control systems engineer i.e. I design the control systems for generation and distribution, so that means I have to know how the things work.
My company does indeed do nuclear waste management systems (Cellarfield is one of ours) and I reckon the short term answer to TF's question is "Sort of, if you're careful". Long term answer, "Yes, certainly".
There are other ways of generating nuclear power than the ones that have been used so far. Part of the problem has been that some of the reactor designs contravene nuclear proliferation treaties (e.g. Fast Breeder's), so we have ended up with 'bad' designs that produce a lot of long term waste.
A major step would be to change the fuel type. You don't need to use uranaium isotopes to get a sustainable nuclear reaction - thorium is a brilliant alternative. Here is an article in the Telegraph that shows that, China at least, is taking this seriously (it's been talked about for decades but never came to fruition):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...nd-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html
and a piece on the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13040853
My company does indeed do nuclear waste management systems (Cellarfield is one of ours) and I reckon the short term answer to TF's question is "Sort of, if you're careful". Long term answer, "Yes, certainly".
There are other ways of generating nuclear power than the ones that have been used so far. Part of the problem has been that some of the reactor designs contravene nuclear proliferation treaties (e.g. Fast Breeder's), so we have ended up with 'bad' designs that produce a lot of long term waste.
A major step would be to change the fuel type. You don't need to use uranaium isotopes to get a sustainable nuclear reaction - thorium is a brilliant alternative. Here is an article in the Telegraph that shows that, China at least, is taking this seriously (it's been talked about for decades but never came to fruition):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...nd-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html
and a piece on the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13040853
There are no guarantees. Taking into account the uranium fuels in use today,even with a proper fuel cycle (that would reduce waste) the methods of dealing with byproducts that remain toxic for 50,000 years are obviously limited. In the short-term, we could probably store the waste relatively safely-say for a couple of hundred years. In the long-term, we can't really say much-there's no guarantee that we'll be around in 1,000 years, let alone 10 or 50,000.
There are some promising avenues that aren't being explored nearly enough. At LANSCE, I was hoping to do prototype development on Accel;erator Transmutation of Waste, itself a somewhat hazardous but potentially productive process, but the money has never come through.
There is also research being done on using thorium/uraniium fuel, which would burn longer and reduce the waste, as well as having less toxic waste.
In short, I think the technical challenges are somewhat daunting, but not altogether insurmountable-a real solution, though, is years away.
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Elder999 and Sukerkin, thanks! I appreciate both the information and the insight. I guess the flip side of my argument is that the people on these boards (you two so far) who could be considered experts aren't the ones who have overly confident and entrenched positions.
I was listening to a radio show where two guys (one pro and one against) involved in the proposals to build more nuclear plants in Washington were debating. We have one plant in Hanford. What they said was very interesting, but the major concern I came away with was their explanation of where the waste management sits. Essentially, it sounded like they don't know what to do with it. The plant pays money into a federally held fund of some kind that is just growing until we figure out how to safely dispose of the spent uranium. In the meantime, the pot grows and the plants make other arrangements to store the waste as safely as possible.
Elder999, as an aside, the point you made about maybe not being here in 1000 years struck me as funny. It's the exact same reasoning people make who fail to save for their retirements.
I was listening to a radio show where two guys (one pro and one against) involved in the proposals to build more nuclear plants in Washington were debating. We have one plant in Hanford. What they said was very interesting, but the major concern I came away with was their explanation of where the waste management sits. Essentially, it sounded like they don't know what to do with it. The plant pays money into a federally held fund of some kind that is just growing until we figure out how to safely dispose of the spent uranium. In the meantime, the pot grows and the plants make other arrangements to store the waste as safely as possible.
Elder999, as an aside, the point you made about maybe not being here in 1000 years struck me as funny. It's the exact same reasoning people make who fail to save for their retirements.
Elder999, the point you made about maybe not being here in 1000 years struck me as funny. It's the exact same reasoning people make who fail to save for their retirements.
Just to clarify, I meant it the other way. How can we build a repository like Yucca Flats, in the hopes of storing something down there for thousands of years, when there's no guarantee that we'll be around, or that whoever is around will understand the hazards and warnings associated with such a place?
Creating such waste and disposing of it by trying to entomb it is irresponsible.
OP
OP
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
Steve, if you dont know who "democrats" are, then i am amazed your pc managed to turn itself on this morning........
this act EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT VOTING NO is in fact giving americans the finger. It is sayng, IMO:
"**** you, i dont care how much you are paying for gas"
"**** you, the trees and fish and little birdies are more important"
"**** you, we should all be riding bikes anyway"
and most importantly
"**** YOU, the green-loving-bunny-huggers donate SCADS of money to us"
that it bothers you lets me know it is pretty much right on target.
the feat of mental gymnastics required to claim it is a troll post is impressive tho.
here is the bottom line:
just because YOU dont like something, doesnt make it wrong
maybe, just maybe, it shows you that YOU are wrong.
Wrong fluids on the cornflakes?
Sean
Steve
Mostly Harmless
Why are you attacking me? It makes me sad. But, on the positive side, everytime you post now, I can remind you of your own bottom line so you remember your own wise words: Just because YOU don't like something, doesn't make it wrong. Words to live by, TF. Try walking your talk sometime.
Balance in all things. To suggest that birdies and fishies aren't important is short sighted and naive. To suggest that being mindful of pollution isn't important is also short sighted and naive. Does that mean we sacrifice people for birds? No. But often we sacrifice the birds for no good reason and write it off as necessary.
A thread entitled "Democrats give american people the finger" is intended to start flames going back and forth. Call it what it is, TF. You're looking for a fight every time you post. At least be honest about it with yourself.
There have been a few methods developed and proposed for encapsulating high level rad waste prior to internment. The idea is that the material is put into a more stable, potentially longer lasting form itself, rather than simply putting it into a container that will decay over time.
There is no guarantee, though that any of them would actually last the required amount of time-it's time on a geological scale-there's not even a guarantee that the ground where they're depositedwill remain stable for all that time: an eruption of the Yellowstone super-volcano could cause a plate uplift or changes in ground water flow: what was once a flat place could become a mountain, and vice versa. Potential sites were well investigated, and are thought to be stable, but the site that was ultimately chosen (now rejected and soon to be chosen again, I think) Yucca Flats, proved to be less stable than initially believed in a mere 35 years.
The French method is similar to a method developed at Brookhaven National Lab, where the waste itself is vitrified under high heat and actually becomes glass-this method is also employed in the UK and Belgium.
The Australians have developed a method called Synroc, which I think might prove to be more stable encapsulation/vitrification-like all of these methods, it's also more than 30 years old.
I took a geology class, and the teacher believed the most obvious choice for nuclear waste storage is in Minnesota, but the voters of Minnesota will have none of that; so, states without strong voting blocks are what is left. No western state is a good place, even with what the French are doing.
Sean
OP
OP
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
you can read minds now?
Well hot damn and praise Allah, we got us a bonafied mentalist here ladies and Gents.
Come on, tell me what i am thinking NOW....
pffft
- Status
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
重心 Zhòngxīn center of gravity- Latest: windwalker099
-
-
-
-
-