31–40 of 473 posts
I’m a little surprised that the emissions are so high per page view. I’ve never looked at co2 emission calculations for web pages before, but this seems a little high.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Burying things in the ground is not a solution. It's more an Ostrich policy.
Lots of scientists disagree strongly with your statement. "The conclusion that disposal is needed and that deep geologic disposal is the scientifically preferred approach has been reached by every expert panel that has looked at the issue and by every other country that is pursuing a nuclear waste management program." https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/blue-ribbon-commission-am... One thing that drives me craziest of…
A solution would be to make it non-hazardous. But there is no viable way to do it right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Burying things in the ground is not a solution. It's more an Ostrich policy.
Lots of scientists disagree strongly with your statement. "The conclusion that disposal is needed and that deep geologic disposal is the scientifically preferred approach has been reached by every expert panel that has looked at the issue and by every other country that is pursuing a nuclear waste management program." https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/blue-ribbon-commission-am... One thing that drives me craziest of…
If we're burying spent fuel, that's a tacit admission that nuclear will not be powering the world, because a once-through fuel cycle with thermal reactors (like the ones used in Finland) powering the world runs out of cheap uranium very quickly. In any case, the lack of a geological repository for commercial high level waste in the US is mostly because there's no stakeholder who really needs it. Storing spent fuel in…
Citations ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Burying things in the ground is not a solution. It's more an Ostrich policy.
Burying things securely until a better solution can be found is a better than letting them sit onsite in storage pools...
Personally I'm rooting for the future where a fleet of falcon 9's launch escape velocity stage 2's that head straight for the sun. Underground is nice until you get radioactive groundwater. The time cost of 100k years of maintaining safety seems more than the financial cost of maintaining a F9 fleet and disposing of second stages.
You'd have to construct a container that would survive a failure - so an explosion of the rocket (on the pad or during launch), or a failure in LEO where it would have reentry. That container would then need to be able to be recovered no matter where it landed on that failure -- so things like floating would be important, and some form of control over landing so it didn't crash onto someones house. Or in an inconvenient country. Obviously it has to stay in one piece.
Now sure, much of that shielding doesn't need to go beyond LEO, but it leaves very little room for the actual payload.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Burying things in the ground is not a solution. It's more an Ostrich policy.
As Ostrich policy is ignoring the problem -- specifically not looking at the problem. Burying the Geiger counters would be an Ostrich policy
I'm excited that Onkalo will be coming onine soon, so we don't have to hear the myth that there's no solution for spent nuclear fuel anymore. The solution that enjoys a solid scientific consensus is the deep geologic repository. Another thing that is weird to me is that everyone says nuclear waste is hazardous for a uniquely long time, but it become less hazardous over time. Many non-radioactive materials, like arsen…
Burying things in the ground is not a solution. It's more an Ostrich policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Burying things in the ground is not a solution. It's more an Ostrich policy.
Burying things securely until a better solution can be found is a better than letting them sit onsite in storage pools...