Elaina

http://www.craigslistmaster.info

* Where to store the waste.
Where is it being stored now, and why won’t that solution scale by a factor of 7?

All current storage facilities are considered temporary. Not one gram has been stored in any location considered to be capable of storing waste for hundreds of millions of years.

* How to protect the waste from attack.
How is it being protected now, and why won’t that scale by a factor of 7?

It’s not considered safe from attack right now. Further, why do you keep asking about a factor of seven. Everything I’ve heard says that we need 25 times the current number of nuclear plants.

As I stated earlier, many will be in developing nations. Such places will not have the capability to protect the waste or the power plants themselves.

* What to do with the depleted uranium that we currently don’t even think of as waste, despite its half life of hundreds of millions of years.

Did you miss this one? Depleted uranium has been blamed for Gulf War Syndrome from Gulf War 1. Depleted uranium is used to make armor piercing bullets today.

* Health of the miners.
There are health problems for people in lots of fields, for example coal mining. Something that needs to be dealt with, but not a serious problem when compared to the health of the planet. A 7-fold increase in mining doesn’t strike me as too much of a problem.

I’m not aware of any such problems with solar energy. So, again, why the preference on your part for nukes?

You’re right though. Health of coal miners is also an issue, as is mountain removal. So, we should also stop using coal. Coal, IMHO, is worse than nuclear power. I am not proposing building more coal plants. I am proposing a real green energy revolution.

* Safety of the plants in developing nations who may have standards somewhat less high than say … Chernobyl.

Chernobyl uses a different design, and newer designs are much safer. Also, countries that are increasing their electricity use to the point of spending tens of billions on nuclear power plants, are presumably developing in other ways, and can manage things safely.
The IAEA will be there to help as well.

What do you mean by the IAEA will help? I thought you were against a planetary government in other conversations. Are you willing to let the IAEA dictate how developing nations design, build, and monitor their power plants? What will you do when they simply start cutting back on staff because they have no money?

What evidence is there that a 7fold increase will not work with regards to plant safety?

Why do you believe that you are not responsible for showing that a 7 or 25 fold increase in nuclear power is safe? Why do you believe all burden of proof is on me to make my case?

Are you incapable of making positive arguments for your own case?

Even a seven fold increase that only multiplies the current amount of completely unhandled waste by a factor of seven and only causes another 6 Chernobyls would not be OK with me.

And, you strategically seem to have ignored my question about giving nuclear power and weapon capability to most of the developing nations of the world. Do you really want a nuclear Zimbabwe? Iran? DR Congo? Myanmar? Venezuela? etc. etc. etc.?

Perhaps you missed my point. Even barring all of the problems with nuclear power, 10 years for a power plant to come online is just too late. We don’t have 10 years to first start having an effect anymore.

Besides, why do you hate solar power?

These days it’s as cheap or cheaper than nuclear power, especially when all the externalities are figured in. And, with enough solar power hitting the planet in one hour to power the planet for a year, there is clearly plenty to go around. A very small fraction of the available power would do it.

There are 365*24 = 8760 (actually a few more) hours in a year. We therefore need just 1/8760th of the potential and we’re done. And, when Portugal wanted a bit of solar power, it took them just 7 months to build the Serpa 11 megawatt facility.

Just following your argument, everytime you say “scale it up 7 times” recognize that the identified risks are also scaled up.

How dramatically self evident does a risk need to be to become unacceptable to you?

How LITTLE does the risk need to be when the harm caused is completely unacceptable?

Is it lack of intellect or imagination that allows you to support Nuke Energy?—or like most well placed supporters are you just financially motivated to do so and society be damned?

* Where to store the waste.
Where is it being stored now, and why won’t that solution scale by a factor of 7?

Most nuclear waste is currently being kept on site in large pools of water. This is dangerous. Transporting the material to a central site also has its dangers.

* How to protect the waste from attack.
How is it being protected now, and why won’t that scale by a factor of 7?

Most of the material is guarded by armed private security. Even more worrisome is the quality of the pools used to hold the waste.

* Safety of the plants in developing nations who may have standards somewhat less high than say … Chernobyl.

Chernobyl uses a different design, and newer designs are much safer.

Chernobyl also uses cheaper construction techniques and safety measures. The problem for small countries building their own reactors is in building cheap, unsafe reactors. Similar or even worse than Chernobyl.

* How to protect the waste from attack.
How is it being protected now, and why won’t that scale by a factor of 7?

* What to do with the depleted uranium that we currently don’t even think of as waste, despite its half life of hundreds of millions of years.

* Health of the miners.
There are health problems for people in lots of fields, for example coal mining. Something that needs to be dealt with, but not a serious problem when compared to the health of the planet. A 7-fold increase in mining doesn’t strike me as too much of a problem.

* Safety of the plants in developing nations who may have standards somewhat less high than say … Chernobyl.

Chernobyl uses a different design, and newer designs are much safer. Also, countries that are increasing their electricity use to the point of spending tens of billions on nuclear power plants, are presumably developing in other ways, and can manage things safely.
The IAEA will be there to help as well.

What evidence is there that a 7fold increase will not work with regards to plant safety?

You just can’t fix stooopid.

fact. Glaciers are all in retreat. Sea ice is melting earlier. Birds who can are expanding their ranges farther from the equator. Birds etc. are all in decline. Polar bears are drowning. Literally everywhere I go, I see evidence of climate change.’

Given all this and more, people should be eager to jump at nuclear power. Instead we get all sorts of minor problems thrown in. I say minor, because all of those problems already exist. A terrorist attack could also happen at an existing plant, so it is meaningless to talk about the prospect of an attack if there are more plants.
Nuclear power generates about 20% of US power, 80% in France, 30% in the EU, and 30% in JAPAN of all places. One would think if there was a major safety issue, the Japanese would be the most sensitive.

#51 – No one here will be able to answer that one …

Moran! Try reading the replies before you type yours. There were already two before you typed that. Perhaps you should walk out into the sunlight one day; I bet you really do turn to stone.

And, by the way, nuclear power is the most expensive power on the planet. The only reason the power companies like it is because many governments will pay for the power plants and then just give them to the power company. But, at around $5-10B per power plant and 10 years to come online, this is not the cost effective measure you seek. Nor is it possible to solve global warming in the necessary time frame through the use of nuclear power. We simply don’t have the time or money to build 25 times the current number of power plants.

Oh, and of course, you couldn’t possibly have actual answers to any of the issues I listed regarding nuclear power, could you?

I thought not. That’s why despite seeing actual answers, you assert that I have none and then fail to answer my questions.

Troll!

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/coaltoliquids.html

What becomes interesting is how such “value judgments” should be resolved.

Pro’s and con’s to everything. What if “coal to liquid” was cheap and could be put on line in 3 years making us totally energy independent for the next 50 years – BUT – the oceans would turn acidic killing all the fish and global warming would rapidly advance?

Suppose the alternative is green energy with tax subsidies for the next 20 years before it became competitive with coal?

Whats the “best way” for that kind of decision to be reached: plebiscite or a leader with vision?

… what’s your take on the next realistically viable alternative if not nuclear? Just curious to know.

I’d like to field that one too, even though not directed at me.

Enough solar energy hits the earth in one hour to power the entire earth for a year.

http://tinyurl.com/cnqmyq

We just might be able to make some practical use of that.